Kouta's attacks a bit rich - By Caro

[jarmanagic]

Quote: sosos
Originally Posted by jarmanagic
I agree with mediumsizered. This Kouta attack on Pagan was motivated by self interest (selling books). As an outsider it seems to me that Kouta's laast 5 years will be remembered that way, on a ridiculous salary, not performing on the field, and white anting the coach off the field. Yes that knee injury didnt help, but I think this attack on Pagan (some/all might be true) is pretty poor form. Clearly Carlton need to clear all the deadwood and start again. Kouta was a great in the 90's but after 2000 deadwood and the most overpaid player in the comp bar none.
Caroline W not the problem here (although Id agree plenty to write about in Tigerland also)

1. Kouta was on a fair salary for the superstar player of a club.
2. Kouta was still our leading contested ball winner, of course his output diminished as his injuries mounted, but to call him under-performing is only to compare his last few years to his superb earlier ones.
3. White-anting the coach you reckon? How do you know he didn't give him every chance, how do we know Kouta didn't confront him? IMO, Pagan was given every chance and took them all, and destroyred the club due to his monstrous ego.




Hard to know the influence of the older players towards club morale without being a club insider, sounds prety divisive to me though

But i'd argue on 1 point, 1 mill a year (between 1/5th and 1/7th of TPP) was never a reasonable salary, no player is worth that and certainly not Kouta. A misjudgement ++ by the Carlton hierachy, Id guess based on expectations they could keep rorting the salary cap. One of the many misjudgements

 

[nutcase888]

posted by sosos
2. Kouta was still our leading contested ball winner, of course his output diminished as his injuries mounted, but to call him under-performing is only to compare his last few years to his superb earlier ones.

how many of his years prior to his injury were truly superb? I agree that he had one season (2000 i think) that prior to his injury he was in rare form. I would be prepared to concede that that was a supurb year even though it didn't culminate in a bronwlow. But i don't recall him reaching anywhere near those heights prior to that season and for a quite a while he was seen as an underachiever and still is in the eyes of many.

posted by sosos
Too late, he already is, and none of your petty jealousies can ever take it away. This is not delusion. This is fact as stated by many respected commentators of the game. If you think he's not a great of the game then it is you who are deluded.

LMFAO. Take of those Carlton glasses mate. I know we all love our past players but lets try and keep the debate within the bounds of reality. The fact is that Kouta is not even one of the greats of his generation let alone all time. No way did he consistently play at the level of a Buckley, Williams, Hird, Carey, Voss etc even before or after his injury. At a stretch Kouta may be in the top 20 percent off players all time but no way is he one of the greats. To call him that is to truly insult the legends of our game.

Too soft? Are you a headmaster at a boys schoolin 19th century England? What you call too soft is a successful coaching method. It actually gets results most of the time. This is a team game and you need your team to perform as one. Was Paul Roos too soft in 2005? OK, sometimes other methods are required, but to label it as "too soft" is just subjective. I question the basis of your agendas.

Agreed to some extent. You defiently need diffrent ways of communicating. However Pagan asking Kouta to jump or he should retire hardly makes him look like a NAzi in my view. As i said before how does that compare to Blight publicly labelling Pitmann the most pathetic ruckman in the history of AFL football. Anyhow Pagan apologised which is something i did not realise that NAZI's did. I have never heard of a NAZI aplogising have you? Anyhow communication is important but i think a good rev up is definetly required from time to time and as i said, a hell of lot worse has been said than that in the heat of the moment.

posted by sosos
Well, that is all debatable, I agree Carlton should have done better with that personnel, but lets discuss 93 ....our centre clearances were dismantled by Sheedy filming our setups and cracking the codes. You don't seriosly think Essendon were that much better than Carlton on the day??

man maybe we are becoming like St Kilda, excuses excuses. Fact is we were cleaned on this day. 8 goals to 1 was the score at one point if i'm not mistaken. Sheedy filming our setups and cracking our codes sounds like good coaching. why didn't we do it? What was your excuse for the pitiful effort in the 94 finals.????

posted by sosos
OK, now I know you're a troll.

yeah yeah i know. Everytime i go against the grain i'm a troll. Heard it many times before and it doesn't bother me. It was actually Bee that first labelled me this without giving me the benefit of the doubt. It's been about a year though and i'm still here. Obviously the mods have taken all my posts into consideration and have logically concluded that i don't match the profile of a troll. And saying that Kouta is not a great player and that he is a sook does not mean i am a troll. it is called being objective. You should try it sometime.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

The article is 100% correct. It's got me buggered why you people bag Carro... especially over an article that is as accurate as this. Why can't you accept it?? Or are you like Kouta and will sook off with your tail between your legs??

 

[Ron The Bear]

Good standard of posting on this thread.

Maybe Carlton's players will be as honest about their performances as some of you.

 

[btdg]

how many of his years prior to his injury were truly superb? I agree that he had one season (2000 i think) that prior to his injury he was in rare form. I would be prepared to concede that that was a supurb year even though it didn't culminate in a bronwlow. But i don't recall him reaching anywhere near those heights prior to that season and for a quite a while he was seen as an underachiever and still is in the eyes of many.

LMFAO. Take of those Carlton glasses mate. I know we all love our past players but lets try and keep the debate within the bounds of reality. The fact is that Kouta is not even one of the greats of his generation let alone all time. No way did he consistently play at the level of a Buckley, Williams, Hird, Carey, Voss etc even before or after his injury. At a stretch Kouta may be in the top 20 percent off players all time but no way is he one of the greats. To call him that is to truly insult the legends of our game.

.

This is terribly, terribly wrong. Kouta performed at his absolute best from about round 15 1998, through to round 20 in 2000 (when he injured his knee against Essendon). For that stretch, he was the most dominant player I have seen, with Carey the only player coming close. At his best, he was the complete package - arguably the best athlete in the competition, a phenomenal contested ball winner, able to break through packs in the same manner as Judd, but with the ability to go forward and play as a KP forward and kick goals as well. Kind of like a cross between Judd's midfield ability and Hird's forward ability.

When Kouta began that stretch of performances, we were last on the ladder. He lifted us to 5 wins in 8 games to end the year, taking us to 11th. The following year, he took us to a grand final - we went from last to a grand final in 12 months, with the only real difference being his run of form. In the preliminary final against Essendon, he carried our mediocre team to a victory over the most dominant team of the modern era - a team who won 24 out of 25 games the following year. In 2000, he was the definition of absolute dominance. I remember a couple of games (Kangaroos and Brisbane in particular), where he had 30+ possessions and kicked 3-4 goals, and was simply unstoppable. Then, when he went out with a knee reconstruction at the end of 2001, we slumped to last in 2002. Basically, we were the worst team in the competition before and after his run of form began. During that run, we played in 3 straight finals series, including a grand final and a preliminary final. I cannot think of a single other player who has had that impact on a team - especially in the modern era. When Carey left North, they slipped, but nowhere near as far. Same with Hird and Essendon. Collingwood didn't miss a beat when Buckley was injured this year. But Kouta was the sole reason we were up the top of the ladder.

Sure, he took a long time to reach his potential, and his time at the top was cut short by injury. But his performances in that stretch mark him as one of the all-time greats - he was just that good. Consistency puts him behind some of the others you mention, but he has to be up there.

As for his comments regarding Pagan, I think a bit of perspective needs to be taken here. Those comments have to be put in perspective. They are clips from his book, which I imagine is several hundred pages long. As part of a publicity drive, his publishers have searched for and released the most controversial passages, releasing them bit by bit over a week - bits bagging Pagan, criticising the drugs policy, etc. All that does is drum up interest in the book. I suspect that when the book is actually read in context, we will find the Kouta and Pagan's relationship was fairly complex and that those comments reflect the end-point of a period of frustration. I don't think they suggest anything other than what most rational supporters could see anyway - the club won consecutive wooden spoons, clearly Pagan wasn't having an impact as coach, yet he was retained for 2007? It just seemed bizarre to us at the time, and must have been even more confusing for the players...

 

[nutcase888]

This is terribly, terribly wrong. Kouta performed at his absolute best from about round 15 1998, through to round 20 in 2000 (when he injured his knee against Essendon). For that stretch, he was the most dominant player I have seen, with Carey the only player coming close. At his best, he was the complete package - arguably the best athlete in the competition, a phenomenal contested ball winner, able to break through packs in the same manner as Judd, but with the ability to go forward and play as a KP forward and kick goals as well. Kind of like a cross between Judd's midfield ability and Hird's forward ability.

When Kouta began that stretch of performances, we were last on the ladder. He lifted us to 5 wins in 8 games to end the year, taking us to 11th. The following year, he took us to a grand final - we went from last to a grand final in 12 months, with the only real difference being his run of form. In the preliminary final against Essendon, he carried our mediocre team to a victory over the most dominant team of the modern era - a team who won 24 out of 25 games the following year. In 2000, he was the definition of absolute dominance. I remember a couple of games (Kangaroos and Brisbane in particular), where he had 30+ possessions and kicked 3-4 goals, and was simply unstoppable. Then, when he went out with a knee reconstruction at the end of 2001, we slumped to last in 2002. Basically, we were the worst team in the competition before and after his run of form began. During that run, we played in 3 straight finals series, including a grand final and a preliminary final. I cannot think of a single other player who has had that impact on a team - especially in the modern era. When Carey left North, they slipped, but nowhere near as far. Same with Hird and Essendon. Collingwood didn't miss a beat when Buckley was injured this year. But Kouta was the sole reason we were up the top of the ladder.

Sure, he took a long time to reach his potential, and his time at the top was cut short by injury. But his performances in that stretch mark him as one of the all-time greats - he was just that good. Consistency puts him behind some of the others you mention, but he has to be up there.

Even if your re-collection is correct it s only a two year period you are talking about and this is not a long enough stretch to be called a champion of the game. However his run in 2000 is the only time i recall him playing at his best over a significant stretch of time. Many commentators felt that he had the Brownlow wrapped up by the half way mark of that season. Then he tailed off and got injured in about round 20.

I do agree that at his best he was unstoppable. Unfortunately i don't believe he produced his best anywhere near consistently enough to earn the label of champion. I do question some of your statements however. You make it sound like he single handedly got us over the line in that prelim against essendon. from my recollection it was a very even team performance and there were alot of excellant contributions on that day.

i stand by my comments that Kouta is not a champion. At best he's in the top 20 percent off all time based on what he produced througout his entire career. not just in short bursts

 

[Dramoth]

As for his comments regarding Pagan, I think a bit of perspective needs to be taken here. Those comments have to be put in perspective. They are clips from his book, which I imagine is several hundred pages long. As part of a publicity drive, his publishers have searched for and released the most controversial passages, releasing them bit by bit over a week - bits bagging Pagan, criticising the drugs policy, etc. All that does is drum up interest in the book. I suspect that when the book is actually read in context, we will find the Kouta and Pagan's relationship was fairly complex and that those comments reflect the end-point of a period of frustration. I don't think they suggest anything other than what most rational supporters could see anyway - the club won consecutive wooden spoons, clearly Pagan wasn't having an impact as coach, yet he was retained for 2007? It just seemed bizarre to us at the time, and must have been even more confusing for the players...

Absolutely correct...

It would seem that Caro is reacting to the press comments released by his publishers. It just gave her ammo for another open slather attack at Carlton instead of getting hold of a press review copy of the book and reading it herself. But why let a little research interfere with a chance at bagging Carlton.

Kouta might not have been in the best form for a couple of years and I think that he would even acknowledge it but I think that the comments released when read in context would not be as bad as they seem. Up until he hurt his knee in 2000, he was playing in front of a good defence and was at the top of his game. When the new coach came in, a lot of the good defenders had either retired or were forced out at the end of the year.

For good or bad, words once said or published cannot be recalled and will live on forever. It's up to history now to decide what sort of relationship these two really had.

 

[Jock]

Fair well balanced article.
Rightly so, no one comes out smelling like roses.

 

[Silvagnis]

Judd's number is up for Blues

The Judd arrival was more welcome than the recent publicity for the club, with the publication of Anthony Koutoufides' book.

Ratten yesterday diplomatically said he would rather the things Koutoufides said had been kept private but made no comment on the substantive matters raised.

"Kouta is a great player and Denis (Pagan) has been a fantastic coach — two premierships in 15 years. You don't like to see these things put in the paper … you look at it and you wish it didn't happen," he said.

Ratten has the class Koutoufides can only aspire to in treating Pagan with respect.

Great to see Pagan show some class and didn't return fire in the manner Koutoufides treated a sacked coach when the "body was still warm". Some things are best left unsaid when we're trying to move forward and put the past six years behind us. Especially when the "author" has a selective memory and overlooked the involvement of the players, the Presidents, the recruiters, the coaches, the lack of funds, the CEOs and the boards had in our three spoons.

 

[Smell The Glove]

Judd's number is up for Blues

Ratten has the class Koutoufides can only aspire to in treating Pagan with respect.

Great to see Pagan show some class and didn't return fire in the manner Koutoufides treated a sacked coach when the "body was still warm". Some things are best left unsaid when we're trying to move forward and put the past six years behind us. Especially when the "author" has a selective memory and overlooked the involvement of the players, the Presidents, the recruiters, the coaches, the lack of funds, the CEOs and the boards had in our three spoons.

Have you read all the book?

 

[sosos]

LMFAO. Take of those Carlton glasses mate. I know we all love our past players but lets try and keep the debate within the bounds of reality. The fact is that Kouta is not even one of the greats of his generation let alone all time. No way did he consistently play at the level of a Buckley, Williams, Hird, Carey, Voss etc even before or after his injury. At a stretch Kouta may be in the top 20 percent off players all time but no way is he one of the greats. To call him that is to truly insult the legends of our game.

Spot on Nutcase, I am not an objective commentator. But other past players from other clubs and media types are. He loses points for consistency over a long period, but is top of the tree for his impact for some.

Agreed to some extent. You defiently need diffrent ways of communicating. However Pagan asking Kouta to jump or he should retire hardly makes him look like a NAzi in my view. As i said before how does that compare to Blight publicly labelling Pitmann the most pathetic ruckman in the history of AFL football. Anyhow Pagan apologised which is something i did not realise that NAZI's did. I have never heard of a NAZI aplogising have you? Anyhow communication is important but i think a good rev up is definetly required from time to time and as i said, a hell of lot worse has been said than that in the heat of the moment.

Its in the timing Nutcase. I think its about respect. Pagan thought that he needed to break men for them to perform. That was clearly not the motivation required by Kouta. We can argue back and forth about which way is best, the facts are it didn't work.

I reckon Parkin gave plenty of rev ups.....remember the vein?

man maybe we are becoming like St Kilda, excuses excuses. Fact is we were cleaned on this day. 8 goals to 1 was the score at one point if i'm not mistaken. Sheedy filming our setups and cracking our codes sounds like good coaching. why didn't we do it? What was your excuse for the pitiful effort in the 94 finals.????

Yeah I'll cop that one. No idea about 94.

yeah yeah i know. Everytime i go against the grain i'm a troll. Heard it many times before and it doesn't bother me. It was actually Bee that first labelled me this without giving me the benefit of the doubt. It's been about a year though and i'm still here. Obviously the mods have taken all my posts into consideration and have logically concluded that i don't match the profile of a troll. And saying that Kouta is not a great player and that he is a sook does not mean i am a troll. it is called being objective. You should try it sometime.

Objective??? LMFAO ROFL LOL Big gut laugh!

You accuse me of having Carlton glasses, what about your Pagan ones? Every time his name gets mentioned in a negative light you fire off your posts.

 

[nutcase888]

posted by sosos
You accuse me of having Carlton glasses, what about your Pagan ones? Every time his name gets mentioned in a negative light you fire off your posts.

yes i defend Pagan b/c i have some sympathy for him. I saw him come into a f***ed situation and try his hardest and then generally cop the brunt of criticisms for past mistakes. I have admitted however with the benefit of hindsight that it was probably the right decision for him to be let go when he was. I have also admitted that the comment towards Kouta was harsh so i don't see how I can be seen as unobjective. But at the end of the day i don;t think the comment was that bad and he apologised for christs sake. So why can't Kouta get over it? I think saying that Paagn sets out to break players is a bit harsh. I doubt that this is what he sets out to do.

 

[len_jet]

pick up my copy today from A & R who are selling them prior to everyone else!

hopefully the temptation to read it doesn't draw me away from my final uni exams... i think it will though!

 

[btdg]

Even if your re-collection is correct it s only a two year period you are talking about and this is not a long enough stretch to be called a champion of the game. However his run in 2000 is the only time i recall him playing at his best over a significant stretch of time. Many commentators felt that he had the Brownlow wrapped up by the half way mark of that season. Then he tailed off and got injured in about round 20.

I do agree that at his best he was unstoppable. Unfortunately i don't believe he produced his best anywhere near consistently enough to earn the label of champion. I do question some of your statements however. You make it sound like he single handedly got us over the line in that prelim against essendon. from my recollection it was a very even team performance and there were alot of excellant contributions on that day.

i stand by my comments that Kouta is not a champion. At best he's in the top 20 percent off all time based on what he produced througout his entire career. not just in short bursts

Kouta's run definitely began in late 1998 - he averaged 21 disposals over the final 4 games, and the same across 1999. And he definitely did not tail off in 2000 - in the 4 games prior to his injury he averaged 29 disposals and 3 goals. For that year, he averaged a whopping 26 disposals, and nearly 2 goals per game as a midfielder. 2001 was almost as good, with averages of 24 disposals and 1.5 goals.

I think its hard to argue that for very few players if ever have produced a stretch of football as good as Kouta's from late 1998 to the end of 2001 - a period of just over 3 years. It wasn't inconsistent, either - across that whole stretch he had less than 15 disposals just 6 times (including 3 games in which he was injured), while having 13 games with over 30 disposals. And I cannot think of a single instance where a burst of form had such an impact on his teams fortunes. We were last before that run began, and last when it ended - quite simply, he put us on his back and carried us along the way. To illustrate further, Koutoufides averaged more than 20 disposals in the following seasons over his career: '95, '96, '99, '00, '01, '03. In all of those seasons, we made the finals, except for '03 - in which we jumped up from 15th to 10th and had our best season out of the last 6 by far. In all of the seasons where Kouta didn't average 20 disposals per game, we missed the finals - with no exceptions. Thats a phenomenal statistic; I can't think of a single case in the history of the AFL that would paralell that. You could argue he was a front-runner; but if that were the case, we'd have a far better record in games he missed. In 2000, we were shot after he got injured, and the same in 2002.

As for the 1999 preliminary final - yes, it was an awesome team effort. But that Essendon team was simply awesome, and at 3/4 time we were spent. We were down by 11 (with 11 less scoring shots), and they kicked the first goal of the last quarter. There's no doubt the bombers were the better team, and has us beaten at that point. But Kouta stepped up and kicked 2 last quarter goals playing in the midfield, dominated the clearances and set up the winning goal. Finished up with 29 disposals, 12 marks and 2 goals - clear best afield. Watch that game again - we were beaten until he stepped up (and there is no shame in that - 14 other teams would have lost that day). If for nothing else, that marks Kouta as one of the greats. (And I'm not sure if injuries had a role, but where were Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher and Sheedy while perhaps the best team ever assembled was being taken apart by one player?).

Overall, I think you have to concede that Koutoufides was as good as any player who has played the game, in his prime; which included 95 and 96, but really spanned from 99 to 01. Over those periods, he was as consistent as any other great play. He had a form slump in 97 and 98, and his prime was cut short by a knee injury. But even if a lack of longevity rules him out of winning arguments against the Careys, Hirds and Buckleys, you still have to put him in the argument to start with.

 

[no1bankteller]

I accidently found myself reading this thread and I am left to ponder. Is it a coach that can turn around a club or is it the players that turn the club around?

It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario and there is evidence to support both side of the argument.

I look at Brisbane pre-Matthews. It had a very talented list, one that chronically under-achieved under both Northy and Walls. However, what Matthews managed to do is reach out to the senior leaders (Voss, Lynch, Black and etc) and inspire them to "join the cause". Just as important was the actions of these senior leaders and the influence that they had over players thought to be undisciplined (Scott brothers, Chris Johnson and Maritn Pike). It is in my view this very combination of both peer support and coaching vision that was the catalyst for the success that Brisbane had in the early 2000's.

The other model that I see is the one that was established by WCE and John Worsfold when he first returned to the club. At the time we had an aging list, one that was topped up by fringe players from other clubs (Mark Merenda anyone) and a coach that had little idea on how to transform a once elite club. On Wooshas arrival there was a radical shift in out management of our playing list. The fringe players recruited from other clubs were delisted and there was a renewed focus on development of players from within. It is important to note that whilst we did obtain Judd with a number three pick there are currently 7 players in our first 22 that were recruited from our rookie list (Fletcher, Cox are both having been AA, Quentin Lynch, Matt Priddis, Brett Jones, Mark Nicoski and Graham who is borderline) and most of them if not all would currently get a game with Carlton. In hindsight, it is clear that even though there was a lack of experianced and strong leadership within the playing group (Jakovich, McIntosh, Mckenna, Matera all being on their last legs or having retired) there was a strong and mentally hardened coach who together with experianced club administration that worked extreamly hard in developing the skill set of individual players and willing them to succeed within a group framework.

How does my rambling tie back to the Caroline Wilson's article?

On Pagan's arrival to the club a virtual nutron bomb was dropped on to Optus Oval demolishing the club's administration and management capability and restricting recruitment. It also provided the club, its administrators and its players with an excuse as to why its ok to finish last - blame it all on the AFL. Whilst it is undoubtable that AFL sanctions had a heavier impact than anyone would have envisaged (including the AFL) it is also important to note that between when Carlton was first sanctioned and now WCE have introduced 6 rookies (Fletcher having started playing a few years beforehand) and one of those rookies is now a 2 times AA.

The playing group had also lost some of its stronger leaders with Kernahan having retired and Ratten (also who was the player that was studying in Brissy and playing with Carlton) starting to struggle with injuries and in my view Silvagni (whilst an awesome player) was not really a strong on-field leader. The clubs was then forced to "recruit" new leaders from its more experianced playing group and it turned to Kouta, Camporeale, Stevens and Whitnall (appologies for spelling). Players who when fit (or in their prime) were wonderfully talented players but as leaders they all had significan personality shortfalls.

The coach that was hired at the time was than faced with a club that had little on or off field leadership and was asked to "re-invigorate" the club. Given the lack of support from a critically wounded administration and the leadership group of players who within themselves were not strong leaders and faced with an assisstant coach that was open about wanting (and almost gaining) his job. Is it any wonder that Pagan became withdraw and dicatatorial?

Do not get me wrong I am not absolving Pagan of responsibility I am just setting the scene as to why the Pagan at Carlton was as different one than Pagan at North. In fact faced with adveristy Pagan became defensive and rather than develop younger players, as was his trade mark at North, he coached for his next paycheck and playing the same old players that whilst well known had the same faults that everyone else knew about. Rather than allowing the younger players to make mistakes and learn from these and encourage them to succeed he barated them. However, and this in my view is a big one THE SENIOR LEADERS OF THE CLUB ALLOWED HIM TO DO THIS. It is therefore a bit rich for Kouta to blame Pagan for the clubs ills and not take on board his own role in the downfall of successful club.

So is it a coach that can turn around a club or is it its players? Or in Carlton case during the beginning of this century is it the players or the coach that can stuff up the club? The answer is its the AFL.

Actually the coach, the senior leadership group and the administration have an incredibly important role to play when managing a club and it is the strength of this group overall that determines how successful club will be. There is no one person that can save a club and it is unreasonable to expect this. It takes a committed effort from the club as a whole to do the job.

What do I think that future holds for Carlton? (Do you really care hat a WCE supporter thinks?)

Firstly the club has improved its administration area within the last 12 months and it seems to have a unified board (not a common occurrance over the last few years from what I hear).

It has invested in youth and the development is starting to come through.

It has a new coach (who will have the support of Carlton faithfull and hopefully the respect of his former teammates). Some question marks still remain on his coaching, player development and leadership ability though, and to be fair, these are same question marks that any first time coach will have against his name.

The determining factor, in my view, will be who the next group of on-field leaders. To be forthright I do not think that Judd should be a captain and he shoud not be treated as a saviour. He should however be in a leadership group.

I do not think that Stevens or Fevola should be anywhere near the leadership roles within the club. Stevens and Fevola are in my view damaged goods, from a leadership perspective, and in do not have the skills, character or the mental strength to be leaders.

So who than?

My view is that Mark Murphy should be a captain, Chris Judd his deputy with the Walker, Scotland and maybe Gibbs to provide support. Whilst this is a young leadership group it is one that has the character and strength to compete and grow together and will be the one responsible for Carlton climibing up the ladder (just not passed WCE )

 

[pumped]

yes i defend Pagan b/c i have some sympathy for him. I saw him come into a f***ed situation and try his hardest and then generally cop the brunt of criticisms for past mistakes. I have admitted however with the benefit of hindsight that it was probably the right decision for him to be let go when he was. I have also admitted that the comment towards Kouta was harsh so i don't see how I can be seen as unobjective. But at the end of the day i don;t think the comment was that bad and he apologised for christs sake. So why can't Kouta get over it? I think saying that Paagn sets out to break players is a bit harsh. I doubt that this is what he sets out to do.

There are points both ways here nutcase. Pagan did come into a club that was faultering and low on self belief. However imo Denis was also faultering when he came to the club. Really it was what could have been a perfect marriage but nearly ended in disaster.

Had the club and coach admitted to and acknowledged their weaknesses and worked togeather then I believe Denis would still be there and so would Kouta and Lance. Further I believe we would already have tasted success. However both parties conducted themselves as victims to eachother rather than working togeather.

Even now I believe that many on the present and past playing list are bitter about Pagan. Further I believe Denis still is mostly unaware to his own insecurities that led to much of his poor treatment of playing personal. On both fronts if there is not some deep searching instead of blame then neither Denis nor Carlton will realise their true potential.

 

[sosos]

There are points both ways here nutcase. Pagan did come into a club that was faultering and low on self belief. However imo Denis was also faultering when he came to the club. Really it was what could have been a perfect marriage but nearly ended in disaster.

Had the club and coach admitted to and acknowledged their weaknesses and worked togeather then I believe Denis would still be there and so would Kouta and Lance. Further I believe we would already have tasted success. However both parties conducted themselves as victims to eachother rather than working togeather.

Even now I believe that many on the present and past playing list are bitter about Pagan. Further I believe Denis still is mostly unaware to his own insecurities that led to much of his poor treatment of playing personal. On both fronts if there is not some deep searching instead of blame then neither Denis nor Carlton will realise their true potential.

Spot on pumped.
It takes maturity and guts to be able to admit your flaws.

And sadly will never happen.

Can you see Collo for one coming out and admit the errors he may have made?

 

[pumped]

I accidently found myself reading this thread and I am left to ponder. Is it a coach that can turn around a club or is it the players that turn the club around?

It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario and there is evidence to support both side of the argument.

I look at Brisbane pre-Matthews. It had a very talented list, one that chronically under-achieved under both Northy and Walls. However, what Matthews managed to do is reach out to the senior leaders (Voss, Lynch, Black and etc) and inspire them to "join the cause". Just as important was the actions of these senior leaders and the influence that they had over players thought to be undisciplined (Scott brothers, Chris Johnson and Maritn Pike). It is in my view this very combination of both peer support and coaching vision that was the catalyst for the success that Brisbane had in the early 2000's.

The other model that I see is the one that was established by WCE and John Worsfold when he first returned to the club. At the time we had an aging list, one that was topped up by fringe players from other clubs (Mark Merenda anyone) and a coach that had little idea on how to transform a once elite club. On Wooshas arrival there was a radical shift in out management of our playing list. The fringe players recruited from other clubs were delisted and there was a renewed focus on development of players from within. It is important to note that whilst we did obtain Judd with a number three pick there are currently 7 players in our first 22 that were recruited from our rookie list (Fletcher, Cox are both having been AA, Quentin Lynch, Matt Priddis, Brett Jones, Mark Nicoski and Graham who is borderline) and most of them if not all would currently get a game with Carlton. In hindsight, it is clear that even though there was a lack of experianced and strong leadership within the playing group (Jakovich, McIntosh, Mckenna, Matera all being on their last legs or having retired) there was a strong and mentally hardened coach who together with experianced club administration that worked extreamly hard in developing the skill set of individual players and willing them to succeed within a group framework.

How does my rambling tie back to the Caroline Wilson's article?

On Pagan's arrival to the club a virtual nutron bomb was dropped on to Optus Oval demolishing the club's administration and management capability and restricting recruitment. It also provided the club, its administrators and its players with an excuse as to why its ok to finish last - blame it all on the AFL. Whilst it is undoubtable that AFL sanctions had a heavier impact than anyone would have envisaged (including the AFL) it is also important to note that between when Carlton was first sanctioned and now WCE have introduced 6 rookies (Fletcher having started playing a few years beforehand) and one of those rookies is now a 2 times AA.

The playing group had also lost some of its stronger leaders with Kernahan having retired and Ratten (also who was the player that was studying in Brissy and playing with Carlton) starting to struggle with injuries and in my view Silvagni (whilst an awesome player) was not really a strong on-field leader. The clubs was then forced to "recruit" new leaders from its more experianced playing group and it turned to Kouta, Camporeale, Stevens and Whitnall (appologies for spelling). Players who when fit (or in their prime) were wonderfully talented players but as leaders they all had significan personality shortfalls.

The coach that was hired at the time was than faced with a club that had little on or off field leadership and was asked to "re-invigorate" the club. Given the lack of support from a critically wounded administration and the leadership group of players who within themselves were not strong leaders and faced with an assisstant coach that was open about wanting (and almost gaining) his job. Is it any wonder that Pagan became withdraw and dicatatorial?

Do not get me wrong I am not absolving Pagan of responsibility I am just setting the scene as to why the Pagan at Carlton was as different one than Pagan at North. In fact faced with adveristy Pagan became defensive and rather than develop younger players, as was his trade mark at North, he coached for his next paycheck and playing the same old players that whilst well known had the same faults that everyone else knew about. Rather than allowing the younger players to make mistakes and learn from these and encourage them to succeed he barated them. However, and this in my view is a big one THE SENIOR LEADERS OF THE CLUB ALLOWED HIM TO DO THIS. It is therefore a bit rich for Kouta to blame Pagan for the clubs ills and not take on board his own role in the downfall of successful club.

So is it a coach that can turn around a club or is it its players? Or in Carlton case during the beginning of this century is it the players or the coach that can stuff up the club? The answer is its the AFL.

Actually the coach, the senior leadership group and the administration have an incredibly important role to play when managing a club and it is the strength of this group overall that determines how successful club will be. There is no one person that can save a club and it is unreasonable to expect this. It takes a committed effort from the club as a whole to do the job.

What do I think that future holds for Carlton? (Do you really care hat a WCE supporter thinks?)

Firstly the club has improved its administration area within the last 12 months and it seems to have a unified board (not a common occurrance over the last few years from what I hear).

It has invested in youth and the development is starting to come through.

It has a new coach (who will have the support of Carlton faithfull and hopefully the respect of his former teammates). Some question marks still remain on his coaching, player development and leadership ability though, and to be fair, these are same question marks that any first time coach will have against his name.

The determining factor, in my view, will be who the next group of on-field leaders. To be forthright I do not think that Judd should be a captain and he shoud not be treated as a saviour. He should however be in a leadership group.

I do not think that Stevens or Fevola should be anywhere near the leadership roles within the club. Stevens and Fevola are in my view damaged goods, from a leadership perspective, and in do not have the skills, character or the mental strength to be leaders.

So who than?

My view is that Mark Murphy should be a captain, Chris Judd his deputy with the Walker, Scotland and maybe Gibbs to provide support. Whilst this is a young leadership group it is one that has the character and strength to compete and grow together and will be the one responsible for Carlton climibing up the ladder (just not passed WCE )

Think it is great that someone from another team's board would take the time and effort to give such a detailed and measured opinion about Carlton. For what it is worth I think no1bankteller has made some excellent observations.

The only thing I am not so sure about is Silvagni's onfield leadership. I truly felt that he was an amazing leader on the ground and was an enormous loss to Carlton. In fact his onfield passion was as deep as any player I can think of in the VFL/AFL. If we had a few players with his level of confidence and desperation in the current group then I think we would be a far better side. The guy you mentioned who was studying in Brissy was McKay. He was not far behind SOS for leadership passion and was another enormous loss.

Thanks for your input. Hopefully Carlton supporters on this board will be able to view your post with open minds.

 

[nutcase888]

posted by btgd
Kouta's run definitely began in late 1998 - he averaged 21 disposals over the final 4 games, and the same across 1999. And he definitely did not tail off in 2000 - in the 4 games prior to his injury he averaged 29 disposals and 3 goals. For that year, he averaged a whopping 26 disposals, and nearly 2 goals per game as a midfielder. 2001 was almost as good, with averages of 24 disposals and 1.5 goals.

I think its hard to argue that for very few players if ever have produced a stretch of football as good as Kouta's from late 1998 to the end of 2001 - a period of just over 3 years. It wasn't inconsistent, either - across that whole stretch he had less than 15 disposals just 6 times (including 3 games in which he was injured), while having 13 games with over 30 disposals. And I cannot think of a single instance where a burst of form had such an impact on his teams fortunes. We were last before that run began, and last when it ended - quite simply, he put us on his back and carried us along the way. To illustrate further, Koutoufides averaged more than 20 disposals in the following seasons over his career: '95, '96, '99, '00, '01, '03. In all of those seasons, we made the finals, except for '03 - in which we jumped up from 15th to 10th and had our best season out of the last 6 by far. In all of the seasons where Kouta didn't average 20 disposals per game, we missed the finals - with no exceptions. Thats a phenomenal statistic; I can't think of a single case in the history of the AFL that would paralell that. You could argue he was a front-runner; but if that were the case, we'd have a far better record in games he missed. In 2000, we were shot after he got injured, and the same in 2002.

As for the 1999 preliminary final - yes, it was an awesome team effort. But that Essendon team was simply awesome, and at 3/4 time we were spent. We were down by 11 (with 11 less scoring shots), and they kicked the first goal of the last quarter. There's no doubt the bombers were the better team, and has us beaten at that point. But Kouta stepped up and kicked 2 last quarter goals playing in the midfield, dominated the clearances and set up the winning goal. Finished up with 29 disposals, 12 marks and 2 goals - clear best afield. Watch that game again - we were beaten until he stepped up (and there is no shame in that - 14 other teams would have lost that day). If for nothing else, that marks Kouta as one of the greats. (And I'm not sure if injuries had a role, but where were Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher and Sheedy while perhaps the best team ever assembled was being taken apart by one player?).

Overall, I think you have to concede that Koutoufides was as good as any player who has played the game, in his prime; which included 95 and 96, but really spanned from 99 to 01. Over those periods, he was as consistent as any other great play. He had a form slump in 97 and 98, and his prime was cut short by a [COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif]knee [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif]injury[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]. But even if a lack of longevity rules him out of winning arguments against the Careys, Hirds and Buckleys, you still have to put him in the argument to start with.

I'm sorry btgd but I am not convinced at all by your argument. My argument is clear, he has not performed at a high level over a long enough period to be called a great off the game. I am not trying to sink the boot into him but I am calling it the way i see it. I do agree that his best was awsome but we did not see it anywhere near enough. You say no other footballer has produced a stretch that good between 98-01??? Cmon he didn't even win a Brownlow so how great could it have been? I know Brownlow medals aren't always a great indicator but i think you are exagerrating somewhat. Who cares if he averaged 20 possessions. This would have been a quiet day at the office for one Greg Williams. I do remember Kouta having an awsome first half of the year 2000. But then he tailed off (more inconsistency) before getting injured. Remember we are arguing whether he should go down as one of the games greats. I really don't ever recall a period where he carried the team. You can pull out stats which indicate that good form by Kouts coinciding with wins for the club. That's fine, i am not saying he wasn't an impact player but one of the greats of the game???? Sure if u define great by a players absolute best form. On that basis Simon BEaumont could be a great after he kicked 8 goals in a half. Hey i could rightly argue that based on that first half Beaumont was as good as anyone. However u need to perform at an elite level throughout your career to be called great IMO.

 

[btdg]

I'm sorry btgd but I am not convinced at all by your argument. My argument is clear, he has not performed at a high level over a long enough period to be called a great off the game. I am not trying to sink the boot into him but I am calling it the way i see it. I do agree that his best was awsome but we did not see it anywhere near enough. You say no other footballer has produced a stretch that good between 98-01??? Cmon he didn't even win a Brownlow so how great could it have been? I know Brownlow medals aren't always a great indicator but i think you are exagerrating somewhat. Who cares if he averaged 20 possessions. This would have been a quiet day at the office for one Greg Williams. I do remember Kouta having an awsome first half of the year 2000. But then he tailed off (more inconsistency) before getting injured. Remember we are arguing whether he should go down as one of the games greats. I really don't ever recall a period where he carried the team. You can pull out stats which indicate that good form by Kouts coinciding with wins for the club. That's fine, i am not saying he wasn't an impact player but one of the greats of the game???? Sure if u define great by a players absolute best form. On that basis Simon BEaumont could be a great after he kicked 8 goals in a half. Hey i could rightly argue that based on that first half Beaumont was as good as anyone. However u need to perform at an elite level throughout your career to be called great IMO.

But you are plainly ignoring the argument!

First of all, you said he only played well for the first half of 2000. That is incorrect- as stats and anecdotal evidence shows, his purple patch extended from late 1998 to 2001. Most would concede that his best didn't last as long as others. But how long do you have to be good for to be rated amongst the best? 5 years? 6? Why is there a time limit?

As for not winning a Brownlow, the list of players who were great but who never won is very long. Carey and Ablett would be in any list of the greatest players ever, but never won one. McLeod has never won one. Others had fantastic seasons but didn't win - Voss, Hird, Buckley - all had dominant years but did not win.

And you talk about inconsistency. Never at any time has that been a valid criticism of Kouta. At his best, he performed week in, week out. Over that 3 year period, he only had 5 games in which he had less than 15 touches. That is phenomenal consistency.

Then you again state he tailed off in the second half of 2000. This is blatantly untrue. The 4 games prior to his injury were:
vs Brisbane, 33 disposals, 3 goals, 1 BM vote (one of his best ever games)
vs Hawthorn, 26 disposals, 4 goals, 3 BM votes
vs Collingwood, 22 disposals, 2 goals
vs Bulldogs, 27 disposals, 2 goals
At no point in the second half of the year did he have less than 20 disposals, and he kicked 2 goals in every game as well. When your week in, week out numbers are 25 touches and 3 goals, you are in supreme form.

Then, you acknowledge stats showing our win ratio with him in the team, but say you can't remember him ever carrying the team. I'm laying it out in front of you!!! In 1997 and 1998, prior to Koutas run, we won 19, lost 25 (43%). Over the next 3 and a bit years, we won 39 and lost 19 with him in the team (67%). We won 6 and lost 7 when he was out of the team (46%). In other words, we were 50% more likely to win with him playing - a third of our wins over that time appear to be directly related to his spot in the side. In finals, we won 3 and lost 3 with him in the team (50%). We won 1 and lost 2 (33%) with him out of the team - the effect is consistent even in finals. Our record prior to his run is consistent with our record during his run when he wasn't playing (43% wins vs 46%). Basically, for that stretch, he took a mediocre team, and turned it into a contender!

Bringing up Beaumont is a complete red herring. Of course you judge players by their best form. Beaumont's best set up 1 victory in 1 match. Kouta's led to a 50% increase in wins over a 3 year period, and carried us to a grand final. Its a completely different comparison.

 

[mediumsizered]

To put in perspective the debate as to whether Kouta is a great or not I will list some of the Carlton players who have represented the club in my 38 years as a supporter, who I consider to be greats of our club:
Nicholls, Jesaulenko, Walls, Doull, Southby, 'Swan' McKay, Johnston, Hunter, Silvagni, Bradley, Kernahan, Williams, Andrew McKay.

Some of our very good players, but not greats, include Crosswell, Gallagher, Crane, Ashman, Maclure, Fitzpatrick, Harmes, Glascott, Dean, Ratten, Camporeale.

Kouta's efforts between '98 & 2000 were sensational, but when looking at his whole career how does he compare to the list of greats above? I personally don't think he belongs in with that group, more likely he belongs in the second group, the very good players.

 

[Smell The Glove]

To put in perspective the debate as to whether Kouta is a great or not I will list some of the Carlton players who have represented the club in my 38 years as a supporter, who I consider to be greats of our club:
Nicholls, Jesaulenko, Walls, Doull, Southby, 'Swan' McKay, Johnston, Hunter, Silvagni, Bradley, Kernahan, Williams, Andrew McKay.

Some of our very good players, but not greats, include Crosswell, Gallagher, Crane, Ashman, Maclure, Fitzpatrick, Harmes, Glascott, Dean, Ratten, Camporeale.

Kouta's efforts between '98 & 2000 were sensational, but when looking at his whole career how does he compare to the list of greats above? I personally don't think he belongs in with that group, more likely he belongs in the second group, the very good players.

Bit off the topic, but:

You have guys like Ken Hunter and Robert Walls in your greats list (fantastic players, but no greats), yet you only consider a triple B & F champion and Carlton Captain in Brett Ratten (including one in a premiership team and another in our 2000 year) "very good." Inexplicable, IMO.

 

[Alpha1]

This is good work guys lots of good discussion which is good to see keep uo the good work and enjoying reading this thread.

 

[mediumsizered]

Bit off the topic, but:

You have guys like Ken Hunter and Robert Walls in your greats list (fantastic players, but no greats), yet you only consider a triple B & F champion and Carlton Captain in Brett Ratten (including one in a premiership team and another in our 2000 year) "very good." Inexplicable, IMO.

Both Walls & Hunter made our team of the century. Walls was the 2nd best CHF of his era, behind Royce Hart & Hunter was one of the best defenders of the 1980s. When compared to team of the century midfield types like Crane, Williams, Bradley, Ashman & Gallagher, Ratten, who was one of the better extractors in the competition during his era, lags a little bit behind. I certainly don't think he would displace any of these players from the T.O.T.C.

 

[Smell The Glove]

Both Walls & Hunter made our team of the century. Walls was the 2nd best CHF of his era, behind Royce Hart & Hunter was one of the best defenders of the 1980s. When compared to team of the century midfield types like Crane, Williams, Bradley, Ashman & Gallagher, Ratten, who was one of the better extractors in the competition during his era, lags a little bit behind. I certainly don't think he would displace any of these players from the T.O.T.C.

Well, thats your opinion, which is fine, but personally, I think Ratten would easily replace either of those two on the bench at least on the TOTC (particularly Walls). Suffered because he played alongside such greats as Kernahan, Silvagni, Bradley and particularly Williams. I still cant see how people dont rate him highly. Very underrated player (as your post demonstrates).