News Positives and Negatives.

[Alpha1]

Like I said B4F we are a young team.

 

[blues4flag]

Yes Judd only laid 1 tackle today, but that comes after 9 & 5 tackles in his previous 2 games this season. I guess though when you are winning more clearances than any other player on the ground (& having 37 disposals), you are less inclined to be laying tackles, as you are the player who has the ball.

And yes, Collingwood well & truly out-tackled us today, but our midfielders were laying tackles (McLean 5, Carrazzo 5, Kreuzer 5, Gibbs 4) just not as many as previous weeks.

FWIW, Judd was our leading tackler in 2009, laying 102 tackles, with only one Collingwood player doing better & that was Shane O'Bree. Of the players you have named, only Pendlebury made the list of Top 100 tackles in 2009, with his 69 being well short of Judd's effort & lagging behind both Simpson & Kreuzer, of our other midfielders.

P.S. So far in 2009 Marc Murphy sits 4th on our list of tackles, behind Simpson, Kreuzer & Carrazzo

Only Davis, Toovey and O'Bree laid more tackles than Simpson, Murphy, Joseph, Gibbs and Judd last year.

Difference between our three and there's is that 4 of our 5 are the best midfielders in the team. Collingwood's star mids in Pendles and Swan were well behind with 69 and 77.

 

[mediumsizered]

Only Davis, Toovey and O'Bree laid more tackles than Simpson, Murphy, Joseph, Gibbs and Judd last year.

Yet apparently our "bluebloods" leave the hard work to our "scrubs".

 

[laminex]

Like I said B4F we are a young team.

How much younger age and game if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Blue Bawls]

Most of these covered, but...

Positives:
Tempo play: We showed we can switch up play and regain control. In the second quarter when we were down 6 goals, we got two back after steadying and halting Collingwood's charge. Essendon failed to do that last week.
Saw Murphy do some breathtaking things today.
Setanta actually fired up after his fourth goal. I missed that passion from him recently.
Jordon Russell. Thoroughly impressed with his game and gives me faith in the team's long-term development. When we get there, we will stay there for a long time.
Fantastic reality check and benchmark provider.

Negatives:
Completely lost confidence under pressure.
We'll have to wait at least another year before we can realistically compete for the top 4.

 

[Malifice]

How much younger age and game if you don't mind me asking.

Its a substantial gap in ages.

Over 30 games experience and 1 year age gap per player over the full lists on average.

For comparison, Collingwood are only 6 months 'younger' than the Dogs (the oldest list) and a month on average older than Geelong, Sydney and the Saints.

They are the 3rd most experienced side as well.

We are a full year younger over the full playing list and even then only a month older than Richmond (the least experienced and the youngest side in the AFL.

Also consider we had Waite, Wiggins, Fisher and Thornton out on the weekend making us much less experienced.)

Look at our list from the weekend:

Garlett + Hendo: 20 odd games each
Yarran: a dozen games
Lucas, White and Jacobs: less than half a dozen games each
Jospeh: less than 30 games

Thats six players from our starting 22 that have barely played a years worth of AFL footy.

Even Jamo, Bower, Gibbs, Army and Krueze are under 50 games.

Also while our most important players are aged 18-23 in Gibbs, Kruezer, Murphy, McLean, Henderson, Yarran, Bower, Jamison, Betts, Gartlett, White, Jospeh, Lucas etc (Judd the exception at 26), all of Collingwoods most important players are 25 and over (Didak, Shaw, Davis, Ball, Swan, Medhurst, Jolly, Presti, Maxwell, Fraser etc).

Bit of experience in those Collingwood players I just named as well.

Our youth = Gibbs, Murphy, Lucas, Kruezer, Yarran, Bower, Jamison, Betts, Henderson etc

Collingwoods youth = Beams, Sidebottom.

Hence why Collingwoods window is currently 'open'.

And ours is not.

Be patient mate. Were a few years away yet.

 

[JOELY]

.
Our youth = Gibbs, Murphy, Lucas, Kruezer, Yarran, Bower, Jamison, Betts, Henderson etc

Collingwoods youth = Beams, Sidebottom.

haha, just a tad one sided mate.

 

[Malifice]

haha, just a tad one sided mate.

I can do an age comparison of both lists if you would prefer.

I rate Beams and Sidebottom. And a few of your other Kids.

But c'mon. Better than Gibbs, Murphy, Kruezer, Yarran, Lucas?

Clearly we have the better young talent.

Dont forget you guys had nearly double the average games experience of our blokes yesterday.

And its not an excuse. You outplayed us.

As you rightfully should be expected to.

 

[JOELY]

Why do you name those Carlton players as talented youth, but not Wellingham, Pendlebury, Thomas, O'Brien, Dawes etc? That's not even mentioning young guys like Macaffer, Reid, Brown, and Toovey who played in the big win, but I'll leave them out because I'm guessing you don't rate them.

We may have an oldish list, and it is older than yours no doubt, but older guys who really push that average up such as L.Brown, O'Bree, Lockyer can't get a game and Prestigiacomo has been out injured. Josh Fraser is on his last legs and Wood will take over beautifully in the coming weeks pushing our age even lower. Our actual 22 isn't that old at all.

You say we rely soley on out 25yo+ players, well I disagree. We partly do, but the youngs guys mentioned above (Wellingham, Pendlebury, Thomas, O'Brien, Dawes etc) plus Heath Shaw and Travis Cloke are just as important to our success as the others. And it's not like Ball (25) and Swan (26) are old men just yet.
But you're right about Beams and Sidebotom being talented. You guys have some bloody talented young players no doubt, and I bet you have some nice prospects waiting in the wings like we do, but your comparison sells us a bit short, imo.

 

[Dramoth]

Sorry, made an error in my previous post. Wellingham had 7 tackles, not 5. That's more than any player for Carlton.

Conversely, Judd only had 1 . That's very ordinary for the captain of the club, and key midfielder who's in amongst the action all game. Marc Murphy who seems to be following the master's lead? Just 2 tackles.

Collingwood's key on-ballers you ask?

Swan: 8
Ball: 8
Wellingham: 7
Pendlebury: 7
Thomas: 5


A bit of an indictment on the effort of some of your key players there.

Sorry... I just flushed your facts and opinions down the toilet...

Collingwood won... accept the win with grace and piss off. Dont try and force your facts down our throats after you won.

Our captain had 37 possessions and had 4 opponents all day and still almost got us back in the match in the third...

 

[gbatman]

We had problems going forward, we didn't go forward with confidence, we held it up and turned it over at half forward and often when it hit the deck in the forward line we were out numbered at ground level constantly, how this happened is beyond me.

 

[fnm_just a man]

Russell - outstanding. Can't believe how far he's come.

Army - great game. Loved that run off swan and past jolly. Like they were witches hats.

AJ - showed why he should not be dropped as some have been suggesting.

Hendo - poor guy. A day to forget. Will definitely be sent back to the seconds this week.

 

[Malifice]

Why do you name those Carlton players as talented youth, but not Wellingham, Pendlebury, Thomas, O'Brien, Dawes etc?

Compared to Murphy, Gibbs, Kruezer, Lucas, Yarran?

I'd be happy betting we have you covered in young talent.

We may have an oldish list, and it is older than yours no doubt, but older guys who really push that average up such as L.Brown, O'Bree, Lockyer can't get a game and Prestigiacomo has been out injured.

I was actually only referring to those blokes that played on the weekend.

Brown, OBree, Lockyer and Presti didnt play.

Josh Fraser is on his last legs and Wood will take over beautifully in the coming weeks pushing our age even lower.

Theres a reason Wood wasnt playing and you guys recruited Jolly.

Wood isnt doing so well.

Our actual 22 isn't that old at all.

You have the fifth oldest list in the AFL (behind the Dogs, Saints, Swans and Cats), and the third most experienced (@80 games per player). In fact you guys are only 6 months on average younger than the Dogs.

We are a year younger on average than you guys as the 13th youngest (and only an average of a month older than the 3 yeams below us) and conceed an average of over 30 games difference (per player) in games experience (@ 50 games).

Your 22 from the weekend contained the following players over 26:

Didak 27,
Maxwell 27,
Fraser 28,
Jolly 29,
Davis 29,
Johnson 29,
Medhurst 29.

Note I left out Brown, OBree, Lockyer and Presti who didnt play.

Your players with over 100 games experience on the weekend included:

Cloke 103,
Swan 131,
Ball 148,
Didak 164,
Maxwell 123,
Fraser 196,
Jolly 171,
Davis 190,
Johnson 190, and
Medhurst 163.

By comparison, we had 5 players with 100+ games on the weekend (Carrazzo 105, Simpson 115, Judd 181, Scotland 181 and Houlihan 188) and only three players over 26 (Ohailpin, Scotland, Houlihan)

Also consider we had 3 players in our 22 on the weekend that had yet to play 4 games (each) in Lucas, Jacobs and White.

Yarran, Garlett and Henderson (our full forward line) were all on 20 games or less... each.

You say we rely soley on out 25yo+ players, well I disagree.

You dont rely on Jolly, Ball, Davis, Didak, Fraser, Johnson, Maxwell, Medhurst, Harry O, Shaw and Swan?

They are your key players!

You might get a cameo from one or more of Beams, Wellingham, Thomas or Sidebottom from week to week, but c'mon.

your comparison sells us a bit short, imo.

Im not selling you short.

My point was we are at different phases of our delvelopment.

Your rebuild finished in 2006. Your window is open. Hence your recruiting strategy last year.

A good base of experience for the majority, plus a third of your starting 22 being veterans with over 150 games under thier belts, plus a few decent kids.

Heck, we didnt even start ours till 2004 and it hasnt really finished yet. We are still in a development phase. Our window opens 2013(ish) IMO.

 

[enosis7]

I don't want to engage in a youth pissing contest and agree with much of what you wrote, but...

Theres a reason Wood wasnt playing and you guys recruited Jolly.

Wood isnt doing so well.

Wood has just returned from a 6 week lay-off with injury.

You dont rely on Jolly, Ball, Davis, Didak, Fraser, Johnson, Maxwell, Medhurst, Harry O, Shaw and Swan?

They are your key players!

Harry O is 23 and won't turn 24 this season - he's the same age as Walker and Betts, and younger than Jamison.
Shaw is 24 and won't turn 25 this season.
Maxwell is 26, not 27.
Leon Davis, Paul Medhurst and Darren Jolly are all 28, not 29

 

[Sublime]

Positives: We're 3-3. Something that a small percentage of people would have picked at the beginning of the year.

Negatives: Should be 4-2 as we lost to Essendon.

 

[Malifice]

I don't want to engage in a youth pissing contest and agree with much of what you wrote, but...

Wood has just returned from a 6 week lay-off with injury.

Would you play him in your current side on form?

Harry O is 23 and won't turn 24 this season - he's the same age as Walker and Betts, and younger than Jamison.

You're comparing him to a bloke who didnt play on the weekend, and another who has played less than 50 games.

I dont want to rain on your parade, but have a close look at the following:

Average list ages over the 46 listed players (oldest to youngest):

# Team Avg Age
1 Dogs 24.15
2 Saints 23.96
3 Cats 23.91
4 Swans 23.82
5 Pies 23.51
6 Crows 23.43
7 Port 23.39
10 Hawks 22.95
11 Dons 22.82
12 Blues 22.68
13 WCE 22.67
14 North 22.64
15 Dees 22.62
16 Tigers 22.52

Thats a year difference between the sides. Which is a big difference in context.

Average list games over the 46 listed players (most experienced to least):

# Team Avg Games
1 Dogs 74.93
2 Cats72.96
3 Pies 71.33
4 Saints 68.85
5 Swans 64.76
6 Lions 62.91
7 Crows 61.68
8 Freo 60.91
9 Port 56.96
10 Hawks 51.83
11 Blues 51.13
12 Dons 47.61
13 Dees 46.46
14 North 45.87
15 WCE 45.39
16 Tigers 45.15

Again a 20 game per player average is a mssive gap.

Adds up to an extra 960 odd games of expereince running around in the black and white.

And around 450 games difference in experience come match day.

Notice anything else? Like the direct correlation between actual ladder positions/ strength of side and age and experience (Adelaide beeing the notable exception) that is.

 

[Malifice]

Also, before I get any grief about the expereinced Collingwood players who missed on the weekend, we were missing:

Waite 118 games
Thornton 152 games
Wiggins 116 games
Fisher 99 games
Walker 92 games

Two of whom were injured, and two of whom will likely be de-listed at the end of the year.

Instead we played 6 players out of our 22 with a combined total of 51 games between them. Three of them had less than 4 games each!

Also consider our oldest players (Scotland, Ohailpin, Houlihan) wont be massive losses (or leave unfillable holes) when they retire in the next few years.

Comapare to Didak, Davis, Medhurst, Jolly etc.

 

[raymagoo]

positives:

Jordan russell - awesome game again! i think ive given him votes in all 6 games, has really lifted this year, his mark in the last was inspiring! kicking out well from full back and is an integral part of our team!

Setanta - best game of his career so far! kicked well offered provided, funny run up for goal thou

White and lucas - 2 great finds here both very composed and level headed!

juddy - has his zing back, wow!!!

murphy - played like a star today

Army - how good is his run! has back pocket sewn up

bower - great to have him back in the team, love the startled emu

yazza - developing beautifully, needs to find 4 quarter performance thou

not going to get into the negatives too much but i think hendo needs a few weeks in the 2's and i was disappointed in brocky today & the selection table

 

[Dramoth]

Also, before I get any grief about the expereinced Collingwood players who missed on the weekend, we were missing:

Waite 118 games
Thornton 152 games
Wiggins 116 games
Fisher 98 games
Walker 92 games

Two of whom were injured, and two of whom will likely be de-listed at the end of the year.

Instead we played 6 players out of our 22 with a combined total of 51 games between them. Three of them had less than 4 games each!

Also consider our oldest players (Scotland, Ohailpin, Houlihan) wont be massive losses (or leave unfillable holes) when they retire in the next few years.

Comapare to Didak, Davis, Medhurst, Jolly etc.

Fish has only played 98 games mate

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

^ They'll surely bring him in to reach his 100 games, stamp his name on the locker and then... well...

But I just get this feeling we need one more genuine forward target for the future.

The backline, and midfield is pretty much 'future-proof' - of course, barring injury and trades etc.

Bower, Jamison, Austin, Armfield, Walker, Russell, have probably a good 7 or 8 years ahead of them. That's a full back 6 that (supposing Austin comes on) could be genuinely rock solid.

Kreuzer, Hampson and Warnock alongside Murphy, Gibbs and Joseph, complemented by players such as Robbo and Sugar, should be A-Grade for a good 7 or 8 years. This is completely withstanding the contributions of Judd, McLean and Simpson who will probably give 4 or 5 years of decent service at least.

Plenty of positives there...

The small forward line, with Garlett, Betts, Yarran looks decent as well - of course their consistency will be under question, but this year at least they're on track for some decent tallies

As for tall forwards that will be in their prime in 4 or 5 years - well hopefully Henderson. White might be groomed up there, but is more of a lead-up player than a bustling FF - We're still a FF prospect, and decent cover/depth short.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT : More positives;

Carlton v Collingwood
8 Chris Judd (Carl)
8 Luke Ball (Coll)
7 Dane Swan (Coll)
5 Scott Pendlebury (Coll)
1 Marc Murphy (Carl)
1 Jordan Russell (Carl)

Leaderboard
34 Aaron Sandilands (Fre)
31 Matthew Pavlich (Fre)
28 Daniel Bradshaw (Syd)
28 Ryan Griffen (WB)
27 Jonathan Brown (BL)
27 Luke Hodge (Haw)
23 Gary Ablett (Geel)
20 Lindsay Gilbee (WB)
20 Chris Judd (Carl)
20 Ryan O'Keefe (Syd)
20 Dane Swan (Coll)

After just three games...

 

[shell23]

Positives

Kane Lucas: He is going to be an absolute gun another great performanc.

Chris Yarran: So far having a great year just needs to finish the game strong.

Simon White: Will be a very good player for the blues is only in his 3rd game and has showed a fair bit.

Chris Judd: This guy is a f***ing freak i recond he has got back that exceleration he had at West Coast.

Marc Murphy: Played a fantastic game.

Sentanta O'hAlphin: 5 GOALS!!

 

[Lance]

* Turnovers were crucial. We lost the ball in the middle of the ground with our defence moving forward more times than I care to count. Nearly every one was a gimme goal for the Pies. At least half their score were a result of our ordinary turnovers.



According to Champion data, they scored 16 of their 24 goals from our turnovers.
We scorded only 6 goals of 16 from their turnovers.

They had 88 tackles (Must be a record) to our 59, i.e, they had 30 more tackles, probably in our back half. Very poor on our part.

Their fierce tackling and pressure and our over possession/ handball was always going to cause this result. This is an issue that must be rectified by the MC, or we are going to lose a few more to the teams that cause this type of pressure.

 

[Dramoth]

^ They'll surely bring him in to reach his 100 games, stamp his name on the locker and then... well...

But I just get this feeling we need one more genuine forward target for the future.

The backline, and midfield is pretty much 'future-proof' - of course, barring injury and trades etc.

Bower, Jamison, Austin, Armfield, Walker, Russell, have probably a good 7 or 8 years ahead of them. That's a full back 6 that (supposing Austin comes on) could be genuinely rock solid.

Kreuzer, Hampson and Warnock alongside Murphy, Gibbs and Joseph, complemented by players such as Robbo and Sugar, should be A-Grade for a good 7 or 8 years. This is completely withstanding the contributions of Judd, McLean and Simpson who will probably give 4 or 5 years of decent service at least.

Plenty of positives there...

The small forward line, with Garlett, Betts, Yarran looks decent as well - of course their consistency will be under question, but this year at least they're on track for some decent tallies

As for tall forwards that will be in their prime in 4 or 5 years - well hopefully Henderson. White might be groomed up there, but is more of a lead-up player than a bustling FF - We're still a FF prospect, and decent cover/depth short.

I am hoping that the club shows some loyalty to Fish and gives him a few games this year to get him over the 100 mark and get the name on the locker... he deserves it for the service he has given the club over the years.

Our defence is really starting to come together and I would love to see them when they have an average of 80-100 games between them and have really settled. They will be an absolute rock I think.

Our mids are really starting to come along nicely I think... another 2 seasons will see them right at the top of their game and our rucks will seriously be an awesome combination. I am looking forward to what happens when Smurph and Gibbs become elite mids and are carving it up.

Our forward line has a lot of potential players coming up... Casboult and Donaldson are two very good options and I think that Levi will eventually replace Setanta in the side and Donaldson will be an excellent cover player. Hoops and Setanta will have another 2-3 years at the highest level I reckon before they start slowing down and will become depth for the players coming through.

Our small forwards are the ones that are going to destroy teams... Betts, Garlett and Yarran will run rings around the best defences when the two youngsters get 50-60 games under their belts.

Garlett was well held on Sunday, but his opponent went to sleep for a second and Garlett slammed through a goal. From what I heard from the radio, Mick was not happy at all.

We have a lot of guys who are now starting to play for the team rather than just for their weekly or monthly pay-checks and as the side develops together we will play more structured football and our consistency will come.

Thats the biggest positive and the biggest upside about the Blues that came out of the game... in a couple of years when we have more experience in our guys, we will comfortably beat teams that we have struggled against. Without getting out of second gear.

 

[3rdMan]

Would you play him in your current side on form?



You're comparing him to a bloke who didnt play on the weekend, and another who has played less than 50 games.

I dont want to rain on your parade, but have a close look at the following:

Average list ages over the 46 listed players (oldest to youngest):

# Team Avg Age
1 Dogs 24.15
2 Saints 23.96
3 Cats 23.91
4 Swans 23.82
5 Pies 23.51
6 Crows 23.43
7 Port 23.39
10 Hawks 22.95
11 Dons 22.82
12 Blues 22.68
13 WCE 22.67
14 North 22.64
15 Dees 22.62
16 Tigers 22.52

Thats a year difference between the sides. Which is a big difference in context.

Average list games over the 46 listed players (most experienced to least):

# Team Avg Games
1 Dogs 74.93
2 Cats72.96
3 Pies 71.33
4 Saints 68.85
5 Swans 64.76
6 Lions 62.91
7 Crows 61.68
8 Freo 60.91
9 Port 56.96
10 Hawks 51.83
11 Blues 51.13
12 Dons 47.61
13 Dees 46.46
14 North 45.87
15 WCE 45.39
16 Tigers 45.15

Again a 20 game per player average is a mssive gap.

Adds up to an extra 960 odd games of expereince running around in the black and white.

And around 450 games difference in experience come match day.

Notice anything else? Like the direct correlation between actual ladder positions/ strength of side and age and experience (Adelaide beeing the notable exception) that is.

Carlton's definitely a younger team. But you're not so young as to use it as an excuse for losing. You have a core of players who have played quite a few games now, and a number of very talented young players who should be good enough to impact games. Collingwood was younger than you are now three years ago, and made a prelim final.

We were also older on the weekend, and also more experienced. However, the team we fielded was still young: 13 players under 25 to your 16. And 9 players over 25 to your 6.

Of our key players: Cloke, O'Brien, Pendlebury, Thomas (very much a key and consistent player), Shaw, Anthony (didn't play on the weekend, add Dawes if you like), Wellingham (he is a key player. Leading the team in clearances), are all under 25.

Sidebottom (19) and Beams (19) were integral to our midfield output, while N.Brown (21) and Reid (21) played key defensive posts.

So yes, we're older than you are, but not old. The real core of our team is young, particularly our KPPs, other than Presti.


You have a midfield group of Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, McLean, Scotland, Carrazzo... that's not young or undeveloped physically. Stacks up well against ours: Pendlebury (22), Thomas (22), Wellingham (21), Ball (25), Swan (26). In fact, yours is older and probably more experienced. They are our top 5 midfielders.

There's no reason why you shouldn't expect to win games and even a final. We did it with a younger list, and a much less physically developed midfield. Your really young players are flankers and pockets, and were easily outplayed by our teenagers (Sidebottom and Beams) who played midfield. Your talls are not all that younger than ours: Dawes (21), N.Brown (21), Reid (21), Cloke (23), Anthony (22). Fraser and Jolly were our only older talls on the weekend.

The players that put us over the top for age on the weekend were: Jolly (28), Davis (29) and Fraser 28. They were our three oldest, and make up the three extra players over 25.

Of course, experience makes a massive difference, but you have a good lot of that in key positions too (more experienced midfield than ours), and can definitely not be compared with a Richmond.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

We were younger than Richmond on the weekend, and have been the youngest or second youngest team for various matches throughout this year.

Why then, can we not be compared with Richmond?

It's not as if, like Collingwood, we rely on several of our oldest players to win us matches routinely. Johnson, Davis, Didak, Medhurst, and Jolly and Fraser are your six oldest, and comprise all of your small forwards and your whole ruck division from the weekend. As well as one of your most consistent midfielders.

Your rucks (28) competed against a 21 year old 50 gamer who was backed up by a 22 year old 5 gamer.
Supplemented by Luke Ball (25), Dane Swan (26), Ben Johnson (29) and at times Didak.
Can you not see the major discrepancy there?

Your small forwards all over 27 years of age were manned up by Joseph (20), Armfield (23) and Jamison (~24). Richmond would barely have been able to produce match-ups with those sorts of age differences.

The reason this is important (to us) is that we know that if we don't suceed in the next four or five years, we can be reasonably confident we will still be competitive in six or so years from now, such that we're building a core group that should remain together for that long.

We definately can be compared with Richmond - they started a 'rebuild' before us, yet probably rely on older players as much as us, and have produced nowhere near the output we have over the past two years.