Autopsy Rd 21 Blues luck dries up in the wet

Who played well for the Blues in Round 21 against the Tigers?


  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .

BrisbaneCFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 1, 2016
5,320
6,823
AFL Club
Carlton
It comes down to this for me; we cannot play all three of Gov, Harry and Charlie ahead of the ball in the ones, not as they currently are. Brisbane in 2001-04 were able to play all three of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown because their midfield was in contention for being the best assembled in the AFL era, and their defence was rebounding via Leppistch like a modern defense, and because when you've got a matchwinner like Akermanis who can play like Eddie Betts as a midfielder, you have that luxury. I'd love to think we can assemble a list of that caliber, but it's not realistic.

We either a) create a gameplan of kick/mark, using set plays to create space for talls to lead into, eschewing smallball completely and maintaining our setup behind the footy to ensure we are not punished for turnovers - which was what we were trying to do under Bolton - or b) we trade out one of those three, keeping Kerr as a backup (and, let's face it, it'd be one of H or Charlie that gets traded, not Gov) and moving to a conventional setup, with more smalls to create more pressure to feed our intercept defense behind the ball. We have more than enough marking options ahead of the ball now, via Kennedy, JSOS, Gov, Harry, Charlie, Cripps (to say nothing of the players in the twos who could develop in that direction) to go ahead with a 2 talls setup. Gov plays too tall to count as a medium.

I'd be cool going for something innovative (it's what made me want Bolton to hang around, we just started to see the edges of what we could be capable of this year with the kick/mark gameplan) but Teague is not playing that way, not anymore. We've been better under him with a smaller squad - as with most innovations in the AFL, it came off the back of injuries instead of thinking ahead - than we have with a tall one, and he has more time for strong marking medium talls than Bolton did.

I'm concerned that our desire to hold onto the talent we've got will interfere with our ability to continue to build our midfield into the behemoth we need it to be.

If anyone is asking me what I would do, I would trade whoever was open to it of Harry or Charlie (consistent performer versus x-factor CHF/FF/mid; whoever you think is more likely to be productive over the long run) for as much as I could, which at this point would be at the very least 2 early draft picks, with which I would use to draft unique midfield talent whilst getting in Coniglio. We need to continue to get in quality at the bottom end, so that they can build with developed players ahead of them.

We're not done yet, not by a significant margin.
I suggested the other day that Harry is the expendable one of the three you mentioned. Copped it as you would imagine. TDK easily could play the third tall forward/ ruck chop out role. Don't believe he will be a fulltime ruck. Charlie plays out of the goal square and Gov roams up the ground. Kennedy and Martin :praying: as the medium HF/ mids. Papley :praying: as the small forward. Harry's the expendable one IMO and we would get a really nice haul for him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JohnnyFontane90

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2014
6,078
8,854
AFL Club
Carlton
It comes down to this for me; we cannot play all three of Gov, Harry and Charlie ahead of the ball in the ones, not as they currently are. Brisbane in 2001-04 were able to play all three of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown because their midfield was in contention for being the best assembled in the AFL era, and their defence was rebounding via Leppistch like a modern defense, and because when you've got a matchwinner like Akermanis who can play like Eddie Betts as a midfielder, you have that luxury. I'd love to think we can assemble a list of that caliber, but it's not realistic.

We either a) create a gameplan of kick/mark, using set plays to create space for talls to lead into, eschewing smallball completely and maintaining our setup behind the footy to ensure we are not punished for turnovers - which was what we were trying to do under Bolton - or b) we trade out one of those three, keeping Kerr as a backup (and, let's face it, it'd be one of H or Charlie that gets traded, not Gov) and moving to a conventional setup, with more smalls to create more pressure to feed our intercept defense behind the ball. We have more than enough marking options ahead of the ball now, via Kennedy, JSOS, Gov, Harry, Charlie, Cripps (to say nothing of the players in the twos who could develop in that direction) to go ahead with a 2 talls setup. Gov plays too tall to count as a medium.

I'd be cool going for something innovative (it's what made me want Bolton to hang around, we just started to see the edges of what we could be capable of this year with the kick/mark gameplan) but Teague is not playing that way, not anymore. We've been better under him with a smaller squad - as with most innovations in the AFL, it came off the back of injuries instead of thinking ahead - than we have with a tall one, and he has more time for strong marking medium talls than Bolton did.

I'm concerned that our desire to hold onto the talent we've got will interfere with our ability to continue to build our midfield into the behemoth we need it to be.

If anyone is asking me what I would do, I would trade whoever was open to it of Harry or Charlie (consistent performer versus x-factor CHF/FF/mid; whoever you think is more likely to be productive over the long run) for as much as I could, which at this point would be at the very least 2 early draft picks, with which I would use to draft unique midfield talent whilst getting in Coniglio. We need to continue to get in quality at the bottom end, so that they can build with developed players ahead of them.

We're not done yet, not by a significant margin.
There are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.

The mobility does suffer a little bit when casboult is there and even more so in those sort of conditions yesterday. When it's bucketing down and wet we should not play with 3 talls in the forward line but when charlie replaces cas there will be enough mobility there to make it work.

The other issue that we have is that because we don't have any good crumbing forwards we really have no choice but to rely more heavily on contested marks which is certainly not sustainable in the wet.

There are a lot of moving parts in the way our forward line is shaping up but 2 pieces that aren't moving anywhere is harry and charlie.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
I suggested the other day that Harry is the expendable one of the three you mentioned. Copped it as you would imagine. TDK easily could play the third tall forward/ ruck chop out role. Don't believe he will be a fulltime ruck. Charlie plays out of the goal square and Gov roams up the ground. Kennedy and Martin :praying: as the medium HF/ mids. Papley :praying: as the small forward. Harry's the expendable one IMO and we would get a really nice haul for him.
See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.

If you traded Harry, you'd get yourself one of picks 2-6. If you traded Charlie, you'd net two picks in that range. McKay is projecting to be the more consistent of the two, with Charlie possessing more marketability and x factor. I don't know about you but I take the consistently good ahead of the occasionally brilliant most days of the week, and we have other potential x-factor players on the list already.
 

BrisbaneCFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 1, 2016
5,320
6,823
AFL Club
Carlton
See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.

If you traded Harry, you'd get yourself one of picks 2-6. If you traded Charlie, you'd net two picks in that range. McKay is projecting to be the more consistent of the two, with Charlie possessing more marketability and x factor. I don't know about you but I take the consistently good ahead of the occasionally brilliant most days of the week, and we have other potential x-factor players on the list already.
I just couldn't trade away Charlie. I would bank that in the long run Charlie will be the far better of the two. I wouldn't hesitate to trade Harry at seasons end. We keep Levi and play him until TDK is ready while enjoying whatever Harry would bring us in a trade. Send Harry to the Swans for Papley, Cameron and a second rounder.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
There are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.
And Adelaide lost. WC got dominated by a substandard Collingwood for 2 and 1/2 quarters, off the back of their midfield being inadequate, and only one because a mid drifted forwards and kicked a clutch goal. Hawks cultivated an innovative kick/mark system precisely as I described, whilst also possessing a clearance coach who changed the face of modern AFL clearances whilst also being one of the best teams ever.

Again, as much as I'd love to shoot for being one of the best teams ever, it isn't a realistic prospect is it?

The issue is not mobility, it is in style and speed. If you have a set of talls that can play smaller, that is one thing; Cripps is what I'm talking about here, because he's KPP height but plays as a standard midfielder, albeit one tall and strong enough to always get the arms free. Adam Tomlinson is another of the kind that I'm talking about. Harry is better than average for his height, but is not the equivalent of a small around the ball and neither is Charlie or Gov.

The mobility does suffer a little bit when casboult is there and even more so in those sort of conditions yesterday. When it's bucketing down and wet we should not play with 3 talls in the forward line but when charlie replaces cas there will be enough mobility there to make it work.
Firstly, Charlie doesn't replace Cas because Charlie doesn't ruck. At the moment, nor does Harry, and nor should he. He's a full forward.

Right now, Cas is a better tap ruckman than Kreuzer is. Kreuzer is the no. 1 ruck, but he's also injury prone and just back from injury altogether. Cas' value as a player is entirely down to his flexibility, and playing him as a CHF is poor, IMO. As a ruck, he's coming very good of late.

And AFL's an outdoor game. The institution can sanitise the s**t out of it all they like, but they can't stop the rain or the winter.

The other issue that we have is that because we don't have any good crumbing forwards we really have no choice but to rely more heavily on contested marks which is certainly not sustainable in the wet.

There are a lot of moving parts in the way our forward line is shaping up but 2 pieces that aren't moving anywhere is harry and charlie.
This is certainly true, but it's as much an indication of coaching style as anything else that we have gone far better under Teague with a smaller squad than a) we did under Bolton with like players, or b) how we've gone under Teague with a fit squad. That, out there on Sunday, was fairly close to the best 22, yet you'd be struggling to say that we produced our best footy at any point. Even if we introduce Charlie for Cas - which, as I stated, is a bad idea due to that leaving a fresh from rehab Kreuzer to take the solo rucking - it doesn't impact on how tall we are across the board. You can carry a certain amount of talls, especially down back, but ahead of the ball you need to be able to move the ball quickly and with a bit of dare, and talls either have to be at the end point - where the ball is received prior to the shot - or they have to be as capable as smalls when the ball hits the ground. To date, this isn't happening.

I'd love to keep our players together, to win with them as they grow from the kids we drafted into men. But it isn't realistic to keep them all in house, not with the level of talent we've accumulated and not with the degree to which our gameplan juxtaposes with our list makeup. Something needs to give, and unfortunately you will not get value for Kerr, TDK, JSOS, Kennedy or Gov. Won't happen.
 

Macca43

Club Legend
Mar 10, 2011
2,274
5,479
AFL Club
Carlton
See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.

If you traded Harry, you'd get yourself one of picks 2-6. If you traded Charlie, you'd net two picks in that range. McKay is projecting to be the more consistent of the two, with Charlie possessing more marketability and x factor. I don't know about you but I take the consistently good ahead of the occasionally brilliant most days of the week, and we have other potential x-factor players on the list already.
Why the f..k are we discussing trading either Charlie or Harry? Both are just at the very start of a decade of dominance.
 

Macca43

Club Legend
Mar 10, 2011
2,274
5,479
AFL Club
Carlton
I just couldn't trade away Charlie. I would bank that in the long run Charlie will be the far better of the two. I wouldn't hesitate to trade Harry at seasons end. We keep Levi and play him until TDK is ready while enjoying whatever Harry would bring us in a trade. Send Harry to the Swans for Papley, Cameron and a second rounder.
And then we can watch Harry become the next Josh Kennedy!!
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
10,180
11,422
AFL Club
Carlton
Idle musings. I'm concerned with how tall we are across our list, and with Teague's coaching - off a small sample size, I admit - seeming to work better with a smaller squad.
He's only had them all in for the Brisbane and Bulldogs game.
I'd suggest that it was working better with them all in.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

KnaveyBlue

Premiership Player
Day Off
Aug 27, 2003
4,807
4,869
57 Mt. Pleasant Street
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Chicago Bears
He is constantly bending/breaking the rules, but for some reason the umpires seem to overlook this. His constant holding of Jones' arm, his chicken wing tackle, the dragging down of Jones to the ground while at the same time appealing for a free kick just screams floggish behaviour.
The one where the umpire said said "You dragged him to ground, Jack" (and didn't pay a free to Jones) was actually really dangerous. Pinned his arm and rolled his full weight across his forearm at a terrible angle, was half expecting Jones' wrist/forearm to snap.
 

chunkylover53

Premiership Player
Aug 13, 2008
4,744
9,165
From Where You'd Rather Be
AFL Club
Carlton
A bunch of crybabys is what they are. Soft players and a soft style. They do all they can to avoid contact except when its crashing in late.
They dont attack the footy they attack the man that just went and attacked the footy while they hang back. Gutless football. Won't be long till they fall off the perch.
Lol turn it up. Won the 2017 finals series by an average of about 50 points, were red hot flag favourites last year and will probably win it this year. You don't get that good by playing soft, gutless football and trailing into the contest.

They taught our boys a lesson in almost all areas of the ground.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
He's only had them all in for the Brisbane and Bulldogs game.
I'd suggest that it was working better with them all in.
Under Teague, I'd say our best performance was against Freo in the wet, and we had Charlie go down very early. I'd also say that was probably our smartest clearance setup, too, because we exited clearances to win the ball through to clear space on the outside far better. Either way, Charlie's injury that day made us smaller, which granted us something of an advantage.

I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is, at the moment we have a great problem to have in that we have too much KPF who are AFL capable.
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
10,180
11,422
AFL Club
Carlton
Under Teague, I'd say our best performance was against Freo in the wet, and we had Charlie go down very early. I'd also say that was probably our smartest clearance setup, too, because we exited clearances to win the ball through to clear space on the outside far better. Either way, Charlie's injury that day made us smaller, which granted us something of an advantage.

I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is, at the moment we have a great problem to have in that we have too much KPF who are AFL capable.
We won despite Charlie's injury, not because of it. I dare say the Melbourne and West Coast results would have looked pretty different with him in the goal square.
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
10,180
11,422
AFL Club
Carlton
Unfair, and strawmanny.

Midfield is still thin, and reliant on Cripps, Murphy and Ed. Walsh is a good start, but we need more than just the one kid to take over.
Just one kid?
Walsh, Dow, Stocker, Setterfield.
Samo, Fisher, Jack can go through there.
Add Coniglio.

We always need more mids, but you don't trade out gun KPPs for them when you can use picks, or get them for Free.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
We won despite Charlie's injury, not because of it. I dare say the Melbourne and West Coast results would have looked pretty different with him in the goal square.
Him in against WC would've changed the whole dynamic of the thing, I agree. All of a sudden, they've got to be mindful of a deeper threat than one of Casboult or Harry.

Again, that relies on us innovating a way to keep all three working together instead of independently, which is something I'd be all for. But AFL coaches are rarely innovative, and rarely do so unless to compensate for injury created weaknesses.
 

David Sylvian

All Australian
May 19, 2019
677
1,317
AFL Club
Carlton
There are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.

The mobility does suffer a little bit when casboult is there and even more so in those sort of conditions yesterday. When it's bucketing down and wet we should not play with 3 talls in the forward line but when charlie replaces cas there will be enough mobility there to make it work.

The other issue that we have is that because we don't have any good crumbing forwards we really have no choice but to rely more heavily on contested marks which is certainly not sustainable in the wet.

There are a lot of moving parts in the way our forward line is shaping up but 2 pieces that aren't moving anywhere is harry and charlie.
Thankyou Johnny saved me some typing
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
10,180
11,422
AFL Club
Carlton
Him in against WC would've changed the whole dynamic of the thing, I agree. All of a sudden, they've got to be mindful of a deeper threat than one of Casboult or Harry.

Again, that relies on us innovating a way to keep all three working together instead of independently, which is something I'd be all for. But AFL coaches are rarely innovative, and rarely do so unless to compensate for injury created weaknesses.
McGovern's 'tallness' is overstated. He's not a KPP.

I'd suggest that Adelaide's forward structure (coached by Teague) in 2017 was pretty innovative.
And we saw the two games that Teague had him for, Charlie was played a lot deeper.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
Just one kid?
Walsh, Dow, Stocker, Setterfield.
Samo, Fisher, Jack can go through there.
Add Coniglio.

We always need more mids, but you don't trade out gun KPPs for them when you can use picks, or get them for Free.
If they come on - all or one of them - terrific. If Coniglio comes, great. If Dow comes on, if Stocker gets to an AFL level of fitness, if Samo can increase his output...

You know, that's an awful lot of ifs. I've got a few more to add.

What if Setterfield is never more than an almost player? What if Walsh's disposal never cleans up? What if Dow never comes on at all, suffering from a number of confidence issues? What if Fisher continues to play timid footy, becoming a rich man's version of Jake Melksham? What if Samo never becomes the midfielder we all want him to be?

List management is not about relying on the best case scenario. You need to cater for what will happen, and you need to have a bob both ways sometimes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm content with these player's development to this point, and I'm thoroughly optimistic about the future we have. But I'm a Carlton supporter, not someone paid to manage lists professionally, and as a consequence it is my prerogative to be optimistic where they must be realistic, and must continue to create contingencies to ensure that the list continues to improve.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
7,569
14,508
AFL Club
Carlton
McGovern's 'tallness' is overstated. He's not a KPP.

I'd suggest that Adelaide's forward structure (coached by Teague) in 2017 was pretty innovative.
And we saw the two games that Teague had him for, Charlie was played a lot deeper.
Gov's 'tallness' is not overstated, because he plays taller than he is. I agree that Adelaide's forward structure in 2017 functioned fairly well, and certainly was innovative, but it was also completely ineffective come the grand final. They got swarmed by a smaller, more determined opposition, and were pressured out of their 45 angled kicks and their space creating leads, which were Teague's hallmark as a forward line coach.

I've probably cluttered this thread up enough with musings to this end, so if you feel the need to continue conversing about this, quote me in list management.
 

Aphrodite

Moderator
Aug 26, 2004
68,738
86,182
CHANEL BOUTIQUE!
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
"Goddess"
I just couldn't trade away Charlie. I would bank that in the long run Charlie will be the far better of the two. I wouldn't hesitate to trade Harry at seasons end. We keep Levi and play him until TDK is ready while enjoying whatever Harry would bring us in a trade. Send Harry to the Swans for Papley, Cameron and a second rounder.
And Adelaide lost. WC got dominated by a substandard Collingwood for 2 and 1/2 quarters, off the back of their midfield being inadequate, and only one because a mid drifted forwards and kicked a clutch goal. Hawks cultivated an innovative kick/mark system precisely as I described, whilst also possessing a clearance coach who changed the face of modern AFL clearances whilst also being one of the best teams ever.

Again, as much as I'd love to shoot for being one of the best teams ever, it isn't a realistic prospect is it?

The issue is not mobility, it is in style and speed. If you have a set of talls that can play smaller, that is one thing; Cripps is what I'm talking about here, because he's KPP height but plays as a standard midfielder, albeit one tall and strong enough to always get the arms free. Adam Tomlinson is another of the kind that I'm talking about. Harry is better than average for his height, but is not the equivalent of a small around the ball and neither is Charlie or Gov.

Firstly, Charlie doesn't replace Cas because Charlie doesn't ruck. At the moment, nor does Harry, and nor should he. He's a full forward.

Right now, Cas is a better tap ruckman than Kreuzer is. Kreuzer is the no. 1 ruck, but he's also injury prone and just back from injury altogether. Cas' value as a player is entirely down to his flexibility, and playing him as a CHF is poor, IMO. As a ruck, he's coming very good of late.

And AFL's an outdoor game. The institution can sanitise the s**t out of it all they like, but they can't stop the rain or the winter.


This is certainly true, but it's as much an indication of coaching style as anything else that we have gone far better under Teague with a smaller squad than a) we did under Bolton with like players, or b) how we've gone under Teague with a fit squad. That, out there on Sunday, was fairly close to the best 22, yet you'd be struggling to say that we produced our best footy at any point. Even if we introduce Charlie for Cas - which, as I stated, is a bad idea due to that leaving a fresh from rehab Kreuzer to take the solo rucking - it doesn't impact on how tall we are across the board. You can carry a certain amount of talls, especially down back, but ahead of the ball you need to be able to move the ball quickly and with a bit of dare, and talls either have to be at the end point - where the ball is received prior to the shot - or they have to be as capable as smalls when the ball hits the ground. To date, this isn't happening.

I'd love to keep our players together, to win with them as they grow from the kids we drafted into men. But it isn't realistic to keep them all in house, not with the level of talent we've accumulated and not with the degree to which our gameplan juxtaposes with our list makeup. Something needs to give, and unfortunately you will not get value for Kerr, TDK, JSOS, Kennedy or Gov. Won't happen.
Why the f..k are we discussing trading either Charlie or Harry? Both are just at the very start of a decade of dominance.
And then we can watch Harry become the next Josh Kennedy!!
I'd be content with that, if from the picks we get for him we draft the next Chris Judd and the next Jordan Lewis.
And then we could trade them for even more draft picks.
Oh, all the draft picks we could have!
Unfair, and strawmanny.

Midfield is still thin, and reliant on Cripps, Murphy and Ed. Walsh is a good start, but we need more than just the one kid to take over.
Just one kid?
Walsh, Dow, Stocker, Setterfield.
Samo, Fisher, Jack can go through there.
Add Coniglio.

We always need more mids, but you don't trade out gun KPPs for them when you can use picks, or get them for Free.
If they come on - all or one of them - terrific. If Coniglio comes, great. If Dow comes on, if Stocker gets to an AFL level of fitness, if Samo can increase his output...

You know, that's an awful lot of ifs. I've got a few more to add.

What if Setterfield is never more than an almost player? What if Walsh's disposal never cleans up? What if Dow never comes on at all, suffering from a number of confidence issues? What if Fisher continues to play timid footy, becoming a rich man's version of Jake Melksham? What if Samo never becomes the midfielder we all want him to be?

List management is not about relying on the best case scenario. You need to cater for what will happen, and you need to have a bob both ways sometimes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm content with these player's development to this point, and I'm thoroughly optimistic about the future we have. But I'm a Carlton supporter, not someone paid to manage lists professionally, and as a consequence it is my prerogative to be optimistic where they must be realistic, and must continue to create contingencies to ensure that the list continues to improve.


Not the thread for it thanks guys.


Belongs here ...

 

Top Bottom