List Mgmt. Our Midfield

[El Topo]

He'd be handy but he's a mid and he's not dual-sided.
I like the Cripps/Fisher synergy that seems to be coming along and shouldn't be broken just because we haven't any small forwards.
Fisher also won't be jumping on peoples heads taking marks, the way the aforementioned could

How's this for an idea; Go and get some small forwards.
How we could have neglected them to this point in time and then having to 'trial' others, almost comes across as an after-thought.

The task at the end of 2015 was to rebuild an entire list from scratch (save for Cripps Dochery and Byrne) without draft concessions. Easy to see IMO how midfield and key positions have taken priority. Even Richmond only brought in Rioli and Higgins when the other pieces were already there.

If we're still asking the same question this time next year, you may have a point...

 

[katmanblue]

Stop being so defensive with your replies, I have no agenda against any Carlton supporter, just putting legitimate discussion points up.

The point is, we have specific needs and blindly recruiting more talent without regard to these needs nor position is not the answer when we are in dire need for small defenders and small forwards.

Playing mids in the forwardline does not make them small forwards. Playing 4.5 KPDs (Williamson) doesn't work either. We should have learned this from last year's top-heavy team.

I agree. Recruitment from this point forward needs to have surgical precision.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

He'd be handy but he's a mid and he's not dual-sided.
I like the Cripps/Fisher synergy that seems to be coming along and shouldn't be broken just because we haven't any small forwards.
Fisher also won't be jumping on peoples heads taking marks, the way the aforementioned could

How's this for an idea; Go and get some small forwards.
How we could have neglected them to this point in time and then having to 'trial' others, almost comes across as an after-thought.

Not sure about after thought, I think the rebuild has been quite methodical. I just think that small forward hasn't been a priority until now. Even though some small effort has been shown in filling this gap earlier with LeBois and Galluci.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Faz 2000]

I definitely think if I had a magic wand the roles we could really do with are a Gresham-type small forward and a Johannisson-type line-breaker half back. Yes, of course, a megastar Josh Kelly or Brodie Grundy taking over in the ruck, etc would be amazing, but in terms of needs I think we need to pursue hard next off-season, it's those particular roles.

The midfielders we have are looking good, but are really mostly pure-midfield. None have shown much sign of being dangerous as forwards or effective behind the ball.

 

[HARKER]

The task at the end of 2015 was to rebuild an entire list from scratch (save for Cripps Dochery and Byrne) without draft concessions. Easy to see IMO how midfield and key positions have taken priority. Even Richmond only brought in Rioli and Higgins when the other pieces were already there.

If we're still asking the same question this time next year, you may have a point...

I think I have a point now.

Glass-McCasker, Shaw, Mullett, O'Shea, Bugg, Goddard through the RD/FA.
There isn't a player there we needed as priority, or even giving a chance to given the coverage that was already in place.
We did try Gallucci though, but he didn't work out and we have got LeBois, I guess, although I don't see him as a goal-kicker either. (may be wrong)
I know people will say this is all hindsight, but we missed on players Papley, MacDonald-Tipungwuti, Stengle, Ronke.

Point is; If you're looking for something you may have a better chance of finding it. I'm not sure we were looking for it though.

 

[El Topo]

I think I have a point now.

Glass-McCasker, Shaw, Mullett, O'Shea, Bugg, Goddard through the RD/FA.
There isn't a player there we needed as priority, or even giving a chance to given the coverage that was already in place.
We did try Gallucci though, but he didn't work out and we have got LeBois, I guess, although I don't see him as a goal-kicker either. (may be wrong)
I know people will say this is all hindsight, but we missed on players Papley, MacDonald-Tipungwuti, Stengle, Ronke.

Point is; If you're looking for something you may have a better chance of finding it. I'm not sure we were looking for it though.

Fair enough - as a wider point, most of the players you've raised suggest that there's been a failure with respect to DFA players and the rookie list in general.

 

[Arr0w]

SkyhorseTamer has already answered your question. But you're still not addressing the issue, just deflecting and talking about other teams.

If you're not interested in talking about the Carlton list, that's fine let's just move on instead of whining. If you are interested in talking about the Carlton list, I repeat: who are our small defenders and forwards (from your unbalanced list)?

What the hell are you talking about, you made a statement that we need certain types of players, I asked a simple question "who is WC and or Tigers specialist lockdown small defender", yet the reason you won't or can't answer is the answer is no one, yet both won flags in the last 2 years. That is exactly the same as us and while it would be great to have one, no list is balanced perfectly. In talking about our list, surely you would use precedence of other successful side?

He'd be handy but he's a mid and he's not dual-sided.
I like the Cripps/Fisher synergy that seems to be coming along and shouldn't be broken just because we haven't any small forwards.
Fisher also won't be jumping on peoples heads taking marks, the way the aforementioned could

How's this for an idea; Go and get some small forwards.
How we could have neglected them to this point in time and then having to 'trial' others, almost comes across as an after-thought.

So which one is it Harks, we want a small forward that can jump on someone's head or be a crumber or both? Sides will continue to draft and develop players that can play multiple roles, such Higgins from the Tigers or a Gresham. Both WC and Tigers recruited their small forwards as the last pieces, Roli/Ryan (both can spend time further up the ground), Caddy, Rioli etc (both spend time up the ground)

No mid spends 100% of time onball or on the ground, so rotating the likes of SPS, Fisher, Setterfield, Gripps, Kennedy, Cuningham, makes us so much more dangerous.

Apart from a couple of poor picks late in the draft/list fillers, I am completely satisfied how SOS has built this list and despite many suggesting we didn't need another young mid in Stocker, SOS pulled the trigger. We also added another 2 young defenders, when everyone was banging on that we had enough tall defenders, yet most thought the likes of Rowe, ASOS JGM should have been retained

So if people want to keep banging on about the short term needs (things change dramatically over the course of the season), go right ahead, I am more interested in our medium to long term strategy

 

[Juddernaut08]

What the hell are you talking about, you made a statement that we need certain types of players, I asked a simple question "who is WC and or Tigers specialist lockdown small defender", yet the reason you won't or can't answer is the answer is no one, yet both won flags in the last 2 years. That is exactly the same as us and while it would be great to have one, no list is balanced perfectly. In talking about our list, surely you would use precedence of other successful side?

So which one is it Harks, we want a small forward that can jump on someone's head or be a crumber or both? Sides will continue to draft and develop players that can play multiple roles, such Higgins from the Tigers or a Gresham. Both WC and Tigers recruited their small forwards as the last pieces, Roli/Ryan (both can spend time further up the ground), Caddy, Rioli etc (both spend time up the ground)

No mid spends 100% of time onball or on the ground, so rotating the likes of SPS, Fisher, Setterfield, Gripps, Kennedy, Cuningham, makes us so much more dangerous.

Apart from a couple of poor picks late in the draft/list fillers, I am completely satisfied how SOS has built this list and despite many suggesting we didn't need another young mid in Stocker, SOS pulled the trigger. We also added another 2 young defenders, when everyone was banging on that we had enough tall defenders, yet most thought the likes of Rowe, ASOS JGM should have been retained

So if people want to keep banging on about the short term needs (things change dramatically over the course of the season), go right ahead, I am more interested in our medium to long term strategy

No need to get so worked up. I quoted the answer for you:

I rate sheppard and Hurn as brilliant defenders who can lock down hard on a lot of smalls.

Richmond have Grimes, whilst taller does the job on absolutely anyone that isn't the number one tall. Plus Broad and short go alright locking players down.

If you want to copy Richmond, why ignore the need for specialist small forwards, who basically had a quarter of their team as small forward types in their premiership season?

 

[Arr0w]

No need to get so worked up. I quoted the answer for you:

Not worked up at all, just staggered at your deflections and the thought process of other flag winning sides not having a specialist small lockdown defender yet you think it is a priority for us

 

[Juddernaut08]

Not worked up at all, just staggered at your deflections and the thought process of other flag winning sides not having a specialist small lockdown defender yet you think it is a priority for us

OK man, I've answered your query twice. You've constantly been deflecting and failed to answer any questions. Time to move on I think, I'm not interested in your petty point scoring.

 

[HARKER]

So which one is it Harks, we want a small forward that can jump on someone's head or be a crumber or both? Sides will continue to draft and develop players that can play multiple roles, such Higgins from the Tigers or a Gresham. Both WC and Tigers recruited their small forwards as the last pieces, Roli/Ryan (both can spend time further up the ground), Caddy, Rioli etc (both spend time up the ground)

No mid spends 100% of time onball or on the ground, so rotating the likes of SPS, Fisher, Setterfield, Gripps, Kennedy, Cuningham, makes us so much more dangerous.

Apart from a couple of poor picks late in the draft/list fillers, I am completely satisfied how SOS has built this list and despite many suggesting we didn't need another young mid in Stocker, SOS pulled the trigger. We also added another 2 young defenders, when everyone was banging on that we had enough tall defenders, yet most thought the likes of Rowe, ASOS JGM should have been retained

So if people want to keep banging on about the short term needs (things change dramatically over the course of the season), go right ahead, I am more interested in our medium to long term strategy

So which one is it? Does it have to be one?
You cited players with tricks. Which of our mids, we've trialed forward have tricks? Polson? Gibbons? ECurnow?
I don't know why we're even debating this. Is there cause for debate and if so, please tell me what you see in those 'forwards' that will take us somewhere.

Our medium to long term strategy? How do you mean?
We're already there and well past our 66 game rebuild and deep into our strategic plan to get this club back to where it wants to be.
Is our medium to long term always going to be medium to long term? It's about the now. Bolton largely has what he wants...He said so.

Of course no mid spends 100% of the time on-ball, but you want some of them capable of kicking multiple goals when going forward, although if you're relying on your mids to do what they have to do and then to slip down for some lazy goals.......really? Is that really going to come about?

We have the three talls in place right now but have very little around them to maximise the situation when the ball hits the ground.
I don't know but somehow that seems obvious to me and was obvious before the season started.
You said that by years end we won't be discussing needs for small/medium goal-kickers. I see that we will. Guess time will have to tell.

 

[BlueView]

so we basically invest on a kid's development and then give him away for someone else to reap the rewards? How many teams do you see giving up top 10 picks, accumulated during a re-build, just as they're at the back-end of the rebuild plan?

Not many at all. But that goes back to my original point that clubs might well be better served being more aggressive rather than letting a players currency diminish. Most are reluctant to let anyone of value go.

It all depends on where you see that kid in your future plans. I see young players a lot like a speculative stock people ie clubs can be willing to pay overs for potential future growth that may or may not be fulfilled, just like we did with Mitch McGovern.

Whether we payed overs or unders is yet to be determined.

For example if SPS has a good year with 7 - 8 great games and flashes of brilliance but the club thinks that consistency might be a fundamental flaw in his game going forward and they believe we have the players to cover him and are looking at another ready made midfielder through FA, which might mean we have excess depth then another club like Brisbane who doesn’t make the 8 but thinks he’s a great addition might well pay overs in the belief their system can iron out those flaws. Why not be aggressive and use your oversupply in one area to prop up another area your deficient in.

It’s lots of ifs buts and maybes but it’s going back to my original point that clubs are often reluctant to trade required players, when sometimes being aggressive can yield a better return.

 

[Arr0w]

OK man, I've answered your query twice. You've constantly been deflecting and failed to answer any questions. Time to move on I think, I'm not interested in your petty point scoring.

I have answered all your questions, try doing the same, to the one simple question I asked

You are right though, time to move on

 

[Arr0w]

So which one is it? Does it have to be one?
You cited players with tricks. Which of our mids, we've trialed forward have tricks? Polson? Gibbons? ECurnow?
I don't know why we're even debating this. Is there cause for debate and if so, please tell me what you see in those 'forwards' that will take us somewhere.

Our medium to long term strategy? How do you mean?
We're already there and well past our 66 game rebuild and deep into our strategic plan to get this club back to where it wants to be.
Is our medium to long term always going to be medium to long term? It's about the now. Bolton largely has what he wants...He said so.

Of course no mid spends 100% of the time on-ball, but you want some of them capable of kicking multiple goals when going forward, although if you're relying on your mids to do what they have to do and then to slip down for some lazy goals.......really? Is that really going to come about?

We have the three talls in place right now but have very little around them to maximise the situation when the ball hits the ground.
I don't know but somehow that seems obvious to me and was obvious before the season started.
You said that by years end we won't be discussing needs for small/medium goal-kickers. I see that we will. Guess time will have to tell.

All this stems from your concern with adding a player like Stocker, which you keep highlighting pretty much every week since the draft. And now, we have "neglected" small forwards. So what should we have done, cut harder or is that cut still to come, or will people still think we will have less than 7 changes to the list again.

Let's take some of the winners over the weekend, midfielders in their forward line such as GWS Greene, Deledio, Cats with Ablett Kelly and Dahlhaus, Port Boak and Gray, Hawks O'meara, Cousins. What about sides that we know have got great small forwards, Pies, Swans, WC, Essendon yet they didn't win.

So other sides benefit from mids resting forward, yet for some reason that strategy won't suit us?

Perhaps I should avoid conversations regarding small forwards until the end of the year

 

[Juddernaut08]

All this stems from your concern with adding a player like Stocker, which you keep highlighting pretty much every week since the draft. And now, we have "neglected" small forwards. So what should we have done, cut harder or is that cut still to come, or will people still think we will have less than 7 changes to the list again.

Let's take some of the winners over the weekend, midfielders in their forward line such as GWS Greene, Deledio, Cats with Ablett Kelly and Dahlhaus, Port Boak and Gray, Hawks O'meara, Cousins. What about sides that we know have got great small forwards, Pies, Swans, WC, Essendon yet they didn't win.

So other sides benefit from mids resting forward, yet for some reason that strategy won't suit us?

Perhaps I should avoid conversations regarding small forwards until the end of the year

Greene is a small forward who can play midfield minutes. He'd be incredible for our team.

Ditto Gray.

There's no issue with having midfielders rest forward, as long as we have talented small forwards in there to play the required role. As it stands, we do not have that.

 

[HARKER]

All this stems from your concern with adding a player like Stocker, which you keep highlighting pretty much every week since the draft. And now, we have "neglected" small forwards. So what should we have done, cut harder or is that cut still to come, or will people still think we will have less than 7 changes to the list again.

Let's take some of the winners over the weekend, midfielders in their forward line such as GWS Greene, Deledio, Cats with Ablett Kelly and Dahlhaus, Port Boak and Gray, Hawks O'meara, Cousins. What about sides that we know have got great small forwards, Pies, Swans, WC, Essendon yet they didn't win.

So other sides benefit from mids resting forward, yet for some reason that strategy won't suit us?

Perhaps I should avoid conversations regarding small forwards until the end of the year

Look, it's not all about small forwards.
It is though about goal-kickers, whether they be 175cm, 180cm or even 185cm
It's just a discussion and you were confident that we didn't need anything more forward than for what we had and who knows; You may be proved right.

I can't see a 'We don't need these types, as our mids will do the job' scenario.
I see a forward craft required to become a legitimate forward, but our mids may become that fluent in goal-kicking duties that they'll be slotting them from everywhere. That could happen, but isn't it just a little too much to ask?
I agree Fisher can kick a goal. I think SPS can too and Dow and Walsh, Setterfield and co......but have they the forward craft to make them dangerous, when 'resting' forward? Please don't tell me we're going to convert them into forwards though...don't do it SOS

Re. Stocker:
Again, I started this thread to get peoples opinions on how they viewed the sum of the midfield may yet function, given the sudden depth we have there.
All opinions are valued and yours certainly has no less value than for anyone elses. I think it makes a good discussion.
You'll notice I got this thread up and running soon after the draft and not just in recent weeks, after having seen what the pre-season opened up.

We started with a midfield of Cripps, Dow, SPS, Fisher and Kennedy and then there's ECurnow and Murphy. Some may say O'Brien also.
We then added Setterfield, Walsh and a player we rated at #6 in Stocker. That's a lot of extra midfield depth in the one hit.

Don't you think that's worthy of discussing how all that's going to fit together?
One can't though state that we took on any of those players as depth. You can't. They were taken as a want and a need, so how do they all fit.
That's what this thread was all about and not about small forwards.

 

[JustaBattler]

A genuine small forward has to be really special - otherwise they are just 'small'. No one on the Carlton list (apart from Pickett ) has the elite speed required to scare defenders. if you don't have elite speed you need so called forward 'smarts' - Thomas was excellent the few times he played forward pocket- because he is very smart. I would have thought Murphy and Cuningham are the natural fill ins whilst Pickett is (again) unavailable. I can understand Ed being tried as a HFF because of his two running and endurance - he does know how to get the ball - the problem is he is learning what to do with it as a forward rather than a mid. Fasolo ois clearly lacking match fitness but it will come for him sooner rather than later.

All this in context of a forward line being invented and wiht zero continuity in place. I'm relaxed about the Club finding what it needs - if it comes to that.

We have to all be breathing easier on midfield depth these days though don't we?

 

[Jeremias]

Greene is a small forward who can play midfield minutes. He'd be incredible for our team.

No, he was a mid who they pushed out of the midfield and reinvented as a forward.

 

[Juddernaut08]

No, he was a mid who they pushed out of the midfield and reinvented as a forward.

Ablett was a forward who they pushed and reinvented as a midfielder. Is he a forward or a mid?

 

[CJMB]

No, he was a mid who they pushed out of the midfield and reinvented as a forward.

A prolific mid at that, averaged 29 disposals or something crazy in his debut year. Just happens to be more damaging as a forward. If he stayed in the midfield it would have been interesting to see 'the great disposal-off' between him and Mitchell.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

All i have to say in this thread is...

Setterfield

Have a great weekend people

 

[Bluey24]

Carlton won the clearances against Richmond with only Cripps involved.
We wouldn't have done any better with Murphy and ECurnow in the centre and certainly not Gibbons.

We now have to push forward with playing the young guys, where they know how to play best.
Cripps is the first hands to the ball player and Fisher makes for a good 1/2 act with him.
SPS will have much better games, Dow is growing, Setterfield looks like a veteran already and Walsh will get his moments.
Throw in Kennedy, flashes of Cuningham (he's been good) and maybe a little Murphy, ECurnow and Gibbons.....but only a little.

Our midfield is doping fine and it will get tired as the season goes on, but so what?
Murphy now has a new home and ECurnow does have a function outside of playing midfield. We'll be fine.

After Cripps, Dow was our best midfielder against Richmond ... then Murph, then Setters, then Fish, then Walshy

By the end of the year, the media will be admiring our emerging midfield as much we have been

 

[HARKER]

Ablett was a forward who they pushed and reinvented as a midfielder. Is he a forward or a mid?

If you simply described the qualities of Ablett without attaching a name, you cloud say he could play almost anywhere.
You can probably say the same about Koutoufides and maybe CCurnow now, but those 'freak' types don't come about every day.

Some players can be re-invented as either a matter of course or as a matter of need and what's best for the team as a whole.
You just don't want to be trying to be too clever for the sake of it though.

Which of our mids could do anything remotely what a Gary Ablett was capable of doing?
Do we want them to or do we even need them to? I don't know.

After Cripps, Dow was our best midfielder against Richmond ... then Murph, then Setters, then Fish, then Walshy

By the end of the year, the media will be admiring our emerging midfield as much we have been

I'm not even doubting that and have said the same.
I'm just wondering how all of Cripps, Setterfield, Dow, Walsh, SPS, Fisher, Stocker, Kennedy and at a distance, Gibbons & Polson, can co-exist.
Maybe they can, but I haven't seen anything put forward yet, as to how that may be the case.

 

[Juddernaut08]

If you simply described the qualities of Ablett without attaching a name, you cloud say he could play almost anywhere.
You can probably say the same about Koutoufides and maybe CCurnow now, but those 'freak' types don't come about every day.

Some players can be re-invented as either a matter of course or as a matter of need and what's best for the team as a whole.
You just don't want to be trying to be too clever for the sake of it though.

Which of our mids could do anything remotely what a Gary Ablett was capable of doing?
Do we want them to or do we even need them to? I don't know.



I'm not even doubting that and have said the same.
I'm just wondering how all of Cripps, Setterfield, Dow, Walsh, SPS, Fisher, Stocker, Kennedy and at a distance, Gibbons & Polson, can co-exist.
Maybe they can, but I haven't seen anything put forward yet, as to how that may be the case.

GAblett is a gun of course. Not disputing that.

Was just responding to a smartarse poster about Greene.

To answer your question: probably no-one, but maybe Setterfield.

 

[Bluey24]

GAblett is a gun of course. Not disputing that.

Was just responding to a smartarse poster about Greene.

To answer your question: probably no-one, but maybe Setterfield.

Gary Ablett is the GOAT, in my opinion (I wasn't around to watch Matthews, Carey, etc.). Put him anywhere on the field and he'd dominate. Unfortunately, his time up on the Gold Coast has tarnished his legacy

My answer to the question: Walsh is Judd MK2