Our List has major gaps

[Jeremias]

Severely weakening? We have three small forwards who seldom contribute as a collective. It has proven a significant advantage over Geelong this year, but in practically all other games at least two of the three have been passengers.

At the other end of the ground we have Armfield with well below average footskills, we have Walker with below average foot skills, we have Russel with average footskills (and still not composed with the ball) and Bower who is reasonably efficient by foot, but far from penetrating. Just who is providing the drive from the backline? Only need to look at what Hodge, Goddard, Gilbee, Hurn and this year Malceski do for their teams week in week out.

Yes - severely weakening.

Teams have acknowledged that our 3 small forwards and the fact that in any given game, any 1 or number of them can give defenders headaches is a strength of ours.

Shopping them around would be madness.

I agree that we need a 'general' off the half back flank but weakening our forward line to get a player of that calibre is not the answer.

Hurn is a good player but there's no way known I'd give up Yarran for him.

Betts is our best forward.

There are other ways than trading our strengths to address our weaknesses.

Scotland has played that role for us over the years and done it reasonably well.

We gave a single draft pick in the 30s to get him.

Offering up Betts or Yarran to get Hurn is just pure reactionary rubbish to what we saw yesterday.

If we have a weakness on the list, embrace the draft or try and get players from other clubs in a way that won't hinder other areas on the field.

 

[blue healer]

I suppose quality would be the key word in my original post.
Yep, a KPD would probably be next on the list of wants for mine...though I am not sure where we are up to with Austin.

Likewise I don't know about Austin, seems to be a lot of love for him so can only hope that he may be a solution.

As a point of interest I watched the Bris game on the weekend and thought Rich had his best game of the season in this position and couldn't help but wonder if Yarren (who is good by foot) could be developed in this spot.

Any thoughts?

 

[blue healer]

Yes - severely weakening.

Teams have acknowledged that our 3 small forwards and the fact that in any given game, any 1 or number of them can give defenders headaches is a strength of ours.

Shopping them around would be madness.

I agree that we need a 'general' off the half back flank but weakening our forward line to get a player of that calibre is not the answer.

Hurn is a good player but there's no way known I'd give up Yarran for him.

Betts is our best forward.

There are other ways than trading our strengths to address our weaknesses.

Scotland has played that role for us over the years and done it reasonably well.

We gave a single draft pick in the 30s to get him.

Offering up Betts or Yarran to get Hurn is just pure reactionary rubbish to what we saw yesterday.

If we have a weakness on the list, embrace the draft or try and get players from other clubs in a way that won't hinder other areas on the field.

Totally agree

 

[Kramer1]

Yes - severely weakening.

Teams have acknowledged that our 3 small forwards and the fact that in any given game, any 1 or number of them can give defenders headaches is a strength of ours.

Shopping them around would be madness.

I agree that we need a 'general' off the half back flank but weakening our forward line to get a player of that calibre is not the answer.

Hurn is a good player but there's no way known I'd give up Yarran for him.

Betts is our best forward.

There are other ways than trading our strengths to address our weaknesses.

Scotland has played that role for us over the years and done it reasonably well.

We gave a single draft pick in the 30s to get him.

Offering up Betts or Yarran to get Hurn is just pure reactionary rubbish to what we saw yesterday.

If we have a weakness on the list, embrace the draft or try and get players from other clubs in a way that won't hinder other areas on the field.

Respectfully disagree.

I acknowledge that in any given game one of the three can cause headaches. But it's had to ignore that in any given game it's likely that one will provide three tenths of stuff all. I doubt there would be fewer exciting games than the occasions when all three are 'on', but this is likely to occur all too infrequently. I think it's a luxury we cannot afford given what it costs us in other areas on the field...same reason teams seldom carry three rucks into a game.

I use Hurn as an example of a player we could desperately use on our list. Scotland has been a good servant, justifying his pick in the 30's, but never been damaging off HB for mine. Kicking skills are overrated and his best work comes through the middle where defensive shortcomings are not so exposed. We have not had elite foot skills in the back line since...err...a good while.

Nothing reactionary about my comments at all. For all bar one game this year where Betts, Yarran and Garlett have palyed together we would have been better off taking in another midfielder.

 

[Malifice]

We need to address our forward structure.

Henderson cant do it alone.

 

[blueblooded]

We need to address our forward structure.

Henderson cant do it alone.

True that he also can't do it playing loose man in defence!!

 

[Silvagnis]

I think our number one priority should be a quality medium defender. In fantasy land I would love to see a trade for Shannon Hurn involving Betts or Yarran, giving us some much needed kicking efficiency out of the back line, and freeing up Gibbs to return to the middle.

I'm shocked you and not celtic_pride would come out with that suggestion.

That trade would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yarran will be a better footballer than Hurn.

Chris could also play that role.

We need to get O'keeffe fit and look for a classysweeper/defender in the draft.

Tuohy might be one to look forward to.

I wouldn't be against trading Jacobs to get a KPP.

Hampson should stay.

 

[Kramer1]

I'm shocked you and not celtic_pride would come out with that suggestion.

That trade would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yarran will be a better footballer than Hurn.

Chris could also play that role.

We need to get O'keeffe fit and look for a classysweeper/defender in the draft.

Tuohy might be one to look forward to.

I wouldn't be against trading Jacobs to get a KPP.

Hampson should stay.

No point in talking precisely who is worth what at this point in time. I simply observe that if we had an elite attacking HBF on our list, and another reasonable KPF option in place of Yarran/Betts and or Jacobs/Hampson then all of a sudden our balance looks markedly improved. As I said...in fantasty land, it might be a straight swap for Betts, their could be draft picks involcved, it might not even be Hurn, it could be another elite kick...either way I would dearly love to see us get a great user of the ball and stop carrying three specialist small forwards into matches.

I only use Yarran and or Eddie as an example of what we have that WCE need. They might go for Garlett if we sweeten the deal...

Yarran off the HBF? Perhaps. He was recruited as a creative forward to generate shots on goal and I feel that is where he will play his best footy.

If O'Keefe, Tuohy or anyone else on the list looks developing into the elite running HBF that I think weneed well and good, though they should set their sights on earning a senior match in the interim.

 

[Go_Dogs]

Yarran off the HBF? Perhaps.

That is what I'd be doing.

 

[CFC16]

The biggest concern is that Carlton are no closer to a premiership then they were 18 months ago and the coaching and recruiting staff are responsible for this. Sure we are 7 th at the moment, but I don't think this list can get any better.

From 07 - 09 Carlton traded valuable draft picks.

pick 3,20 and Kennedy for Judd
pick 24,56,68 for Warnock
pick 11 for McClean

Imagine a Carlton Forward line with Fevola, Kennedy, Betts, Yarran and rotating Kruezer.

A midfield of Murphy,Gibbs, Cale Morton, Andy Otten, Suban, Simpson,Walker and Kane Lucas.

07-
I think Chris Judd is a wonderful player but we gave up a 10 year CHF and 2 another 10 year midfielders for him. I can accept this, but was it the right decision for Carlton ?

08-
In 08 we gave up pick 24 for a ruckman who can't get a game. We already had Jacobs, Hampson and Kreuzer on the list. Pick 24 was a very good pick where Fero drafted Suban.

09-
Pick 11 for McClean which was a joke.

I believe if Carlton had kept all there picks we would be a top 4 team.
Melbourne are the perfect example how to build a list.
Most Carlton supporters would disagree me, but everyone has an opinion.

 

[Silvagnis]

Everyone has the right to opinion and be wrong.

And CFC16 is wrong to pick out names of the draft using hindsight.

And to even suggest that we'd be top four with the names he suggested.

The mind boggles at the shit our supporters can come out with.

CFC16 always posts garbage after a loss.

Why the hell is Fevola in that list?

FFS.

Get a clue.

I hope you're not a Carlton supporter, but a troll.

 

[bluepride]

Why the hell is Fevola in that list?

FFS.

Get a clue.

Wise words, find it quite humourous some of the things our supporters come up with.
Fevola was a cancer at our club, it has now been removed and the effects now going away why the hell would we want that back effecting our youth.

But a least this guy knows where Gibbs should be playing

 

[CFC16]

Everyone has the right to opinion and be wrong.

And CFC16 is wrong to pick out names of the draft using hindsight.

And to even suggest that we'd be top four with the names he suggested.

The mind boggles at the shit our supporters can come out with.

CFC16 always posts garbage after a loss.

Why the hell is Fevola in that list?

FFS.

Get a clue.

I hope you're not a Carlton supporter, but a troll.

I tell ya whats mind boggling is your abuse when someone has an opinion. This forum is about opinions. There nor right or wrong. What do I expect from a goose !

 

[true blue19]

The biggest concern is that Carlton are no closer to a premiership then they were 18 months ago and the coaching and recruiting staff are responsible for this. Sure we are 7 th at the moment, but I don't think this list can get any better.

From 07 - 09 Carlton traded valuable draft picks.

pick 3,20 and Kennedy for Judd
pick 24,56,68 for Warnock
pick 11 for McClean

Imagine a Carlton Forward line with Fevola, Kennedy, Betts, Yarran and rotating Kruezer.

A midfield of Murphy,Gibbs, Cale Morton, Andy Otten, Suban, Simpson,Walker and Kane Lucas.

07-
I think Chris Judd is a wonderful player but we gave up a 10 year CHF and 2 another 10 year midfielders for him. I can accept this, but was it the right decision for Carlton ?

08-
In 08 we gave up pick 24 for a ruckman who can't get a game. We already had Jacobs, Hampson and Kreuzer on the list. Pick 24 was a very good pick where Fero drafted Suban.

09-
Pick 11 for McClean which was a joke.

I believe if Carlton had kept all there picks we would be a top 4 team.
Melbourne are the perfect example how to build a list.
Most Carlton supporters would disagree me, but everyone has an opinion.

theres a couple of thing wrong with your argument
1st- in the judd trade we got pick46 (armfield) plus west coast picked masten and notte (a tall forward) not morton (a tall hbf not midfielder)and ottens(who is a tall defender not a midfielder)

2nd- the warnock trade we got pick 65 (o'keeffe)

3rd- melbourne (the perfect example) went after judd, warnock and wanted to keep mclean also chased ball, lovett and jolly and did get any of them.

 

[Bluebear]

3. The lack of intensity and real attuidue has been in decline in games also, tonight early the start was okay but our attack has been so ordinary, aside from Betts for a significant period, maybe Betts was due for a night off and it just showed the lack of viable options aside from him.

This is the key difference between us against the Dogs and the team that rolled out vs the Cats and Saints.

The same list, with the smae deficiencies in skill and the same amount of inexperience played (more or less) in all games.

It's what is between the ears that makes the difference. Look at the Tigers as an example of what a "dud list" can do when they are all ready to kill to win the footy or to free up a teammate.

Any team that has put physical pressure on our disposal has taken us to the cleaners. Hawks, Roos, Pies, and Dogs. Mentally in those games we decided pretty early on that it was all too hard to try and work through. THIS is our major problem. Changing a few players, or even the coach won't change this.

Freo was the only abberation. They didn't put the pressure to us......we did it to ourselves by kicking 1.12 to open the game........a repeat of the loss to the Lions in round 2.

We don't need a new list, and a new coach. We need a good sports pysch to get the boys brains back on track. Then, we are capable of producing great footy, and we can turn it around.

However, if our mental attitude does not significantly alter........we will miss the 8.

07-
I think Chris Judd is a wonderful player but we gave up a 10 year CHF and 2 another 10 year midfielders for him. I can accept this, but was it the right decision for Carlton ?

If you think Lucas can't get in the team......do you really think Masten would?

Judd for Kennedy.....fair swap to me......and Hendo > Kennedy at the same age.

 

[Ryan Dixon Webb]

I think our list is great. A lot of young developing talent, most of them are pretty tough too which i think has been missing in our current crop of senior players. Davies, Kerr, Cachia, Tuohy, O'Keeffe etc. are all tough hombres.

 

[BlueSnake]

Totally agree with Bluebear and I also do think that while we certainly do have some very average disposers of the ball, I think it's mostly made worse by the lack of hard work and willing to play and help our teammates.

Forgetting the missing a target to a free player from 20 metres away o) and poor decision making etc for a moment.. generally it seems no one is willing to work hard enough into space or help create space for someone else and all too often we're trying to kick to targets that are never really in advantage etc and players playing for themselves and/or thinking they are better than they are.

I think the collective mindset and attitude of the group is the problem, not necessarily our skillsets or types of players.

 

[ZabsBlues]

Totally agree with Bluebear and I also do think that while we certainly do have some very average disposers of the ball, I think it's mostly made worse by the lack of hard work and willing to play and help our teammates.

Forgetting the missing a target to a free player from 20 metres away o) and poor decision making etc for a moment.. generally it seems no one is willing to work hard enough into space or help create space for someone else and all too often we're trying to kick to targets that are never really in advantage etc and players playing for themselves and/or thinking they are better than they are.

I think the collective mindset and attitude of the group is the problem, not necessarily our skillsets or types of players.

Agree 100%, when we are up ie Saints, Geelong games we can beat any team. We NEED a bit of mongrel when we are not going too well. Every game we lost this year was because we couldnt handle the other teams pressure & hardness. When we lose we get flogged.

 

[Team Mo']

I think a major list "gap" is about 2 years.

Come back in 2 years when we are really a threat (we don't have to be one now) and every player knows how to play with each other.

It took Geelong longer. It took Hawthorn about a week. Some sides mature differently and a slower pace. Obviously I'd rather us playing a better brand of football right now but we are at the same level expereince wise as the Melbournes, Kangaroos and Essendons of the world.

 

[PeeKay]

I don't necessarily think it's our present players skills. Or at least not many of them.
As I have been saying now for two years, the problem is we have no Key Position Players at either end of the ground and that is putting pressure on all over the ground. It has been proven by the statistics that we get it into our forward area as often as any team but it just comes out too easily and that puts pressure on our backline. We don't have any big strong targets at FF or CHF.
Combine that with our complete lack of strong FB and CHB and there lies the problem. By the way Jamison is not a FB and other than "spoiling" skills has very little else to make him a servicable FB.
We have a great deal of good to great midfield runners and a huge number of flankers who are all capable in one way or another. But they are being asked to cover the lack of "tall/strongs".
By all this we end up losing confidence to kick the ball quickly to any target because they are generally smalls or near to it.
We need a couple of strong, tough 195/197cm talls at either end of the ground.
O'hAlpin and Hampson are at best second string talls and would contribute more if they had were to have another tough tall taking the number one in the oppostions defence. For instance on the weekend Lake was too good for any of our big guys, but if we had a real good big strong CHF and/or Full Forward he would have had to play on him and the likes of O'hAlpin and Hampson would have an easier time on some player of similar ability.
So guys, lets not bag too much the guys we're got. It takes a complete structure to win big games these days and we haven't got the "cattle" to compliment our top midfield runners.
These poor buggers have to do the lot.

 

[KoutoufidesGhost]

Garlett - 20
Yarran - 19
Gibbs - 21
Murphy - 22
Bower - 22
Kreuzer - 21
Jacobs - 22
Armfield - 23
Joseph - 22
Henderson - 20
Russell - 23
Robinson - 21
Lucas - 19
White - 22
Austin - 21
Hampson - 22

Personally, I think the list is in pretty good shape.

 

[Bluebear]

It has been proven by the statistics that we get it into our forward area as often as any team but it just comes out too easily and that puts pressure on our backline. We don't have any big strong targets at FF or CHF.

Well I supose those stats could prove we don't have strong targets, though in the last few years our target (singular) has been as strong as anyones.

It could also prove that the delivery inside 50 isn't very good.

I tend to think this year its a combination of both........but while we have had, at different stages, strong targets in F50........can you tell me a game this year where our delivery to said targets could be considered elite?

I can't think of one, and anytime I have posted that, no-one has corrected me.
Our midfield is elite at many things.......kicking the pill inside 50 to leading targets isn't (or at present doesn't appear to be) one of them.

 

[rp84]

Hawthorn were an aberration.

Our side is going to be so good in 2 or 3 years. We do need to make a couple small changes, but out young guys are awesome. Plus, the first year players all look a chance to make the grade.

Within the next couple years, guys like Carazzo won't be getting a game. Houlihan won't be a premiership player for us, but is fine at the moment. All these guys like Kerr, Davies, Cachia will fill these roles, but will be tougher players. We have the potential of our rookie KPPs as well. It sounds like Casboult may be able to become a 40 goal a year forward, and that is all we need to add. Hendo is a great future CHF. 2 good smalls, and Yarran will play as a quick medium forward.

I much prefer the Geelong model, rather than the Hawks model. They were lucky Buddy and Roughie both dominated that season. Have 18 very good medium players, and a couple big defenders is a great way to win a flag. They don't have any great key forwards, and will win 3 from 4.

 

[CFC16]

I don't necessarily think it's our present players skills. Or at least not many of them.
As I have been saying now for two years, the problem is we have no Key Position Players at either end of the ground and that is putting pressure on all over the ground. It has been proven by the statistics that we get it into our forward area as often as any team but it just comes out too easily and that puts pressure on our backline. We don't have any big strong targets at FF or CHF.
Combine that with our complete lack of strong FB and CHB and there lies the problem. By the way Jamison is not a FB and other than "spoiling" skills has very little else to make him a servicable FB.
We have a great deal of good to great midfield runners and a huge number of flankers who are all capable in one way or another. But they are being asked to cover the lack of "tall/strongs".
By all this we end up losing confidence to kick the ball quickly to any target because they are generally smalls or near to it.
We need a couple of strong, tough 195/197cm talls at either end of the ground.
O'hAlpin and Hampson are at best second string talls and would contribute more if they had were to have another tough tall taking the number one in the oppostions defence. For instance on the weekend Lake was too good for any of our big guys, but if we had a real good big strong CHF and/or Full Forward he would have had to play on him and the likes of O'hAlpin and Hampson would have an easier time on some player of similar ability.
So guys, lets not bag too much the guys we're got. It takes a complete structure to win big games these days and we haven't got the "cattle" to compliment our top midfield runners.
These poor buggers have to do the lot.

Agree, we don't have FF, CHF, CHB, FB.

 

[KoutoufidesGhost]

can you tell me a game this year where our delivery to said targets could be considered elite?

I can't think of one, and anytime I have posted that, no-one has corrected me.

You don't win AFL games by 50+ points without nice service for the forwards. Geelong game I50s were also very good and the first quarter vs Melbourne was the best footy Carlton have played all year (before they went the superflood, and then it actually flooded).

Even against Collingwood they delivered well into the 50, just couldn't stop them the other way.