Preview Rnd 6 - Carlton v Hawthorn Sunday April 28th 3.20PM @ UTAS - Team Post #1331

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Posts
1,540
Likes
3,521
AFL Club
Carlton
There will always be changes over a season. We just need to now lessen them as much as possible and I think that's happening. His point is valid
We should never pick a side simply because we don't want to make a change. If these 2 players were similar in quality or played significantly different roles Polson might stay for team cohesion but to put team cohesion as our main priority "regardless of who is playing" is just ridiculous.
 

JohnnyFontane90

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Posts
5,606
Likes
7,604
AFL Club
Carlton
There’s no doubt that the chemistry of the team takes precedence although Barassi confused me many years ago. I’ll paraphrase his statement concerning the individual and the team. Everybody wants to be the best player but the team must come in as a very close second. It told me that he had no time for guys who just played for themselves. Gotta say I agree.
I don't think anyone is saying that cuningham plays for himself while polson is all self-sacrificing or vice-versa.

they're both just role players at this stage in their careers, but on exposed form and ability cuningham has polson covered by a considerable distance.
 

Soapy V

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Posts
18,651
Likes
47,349
AFL Club
Carlton
Soapy - you have yet to name 1 reason why Polson should actually be picked beyond "team cohesion", as if making 1 change by dropping an under performing player is going to throw the whole team into disarray. What role did Polson perform on the weekend? How would Cuningham coming in for him throw out team balance?
Did I say Cuningham would throw out balance?

Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure. Was he great? No, but he has done the role well before. Too many people react quickly over one game and it was his first game back. Is it enough to keep his spot? Not sure but a win helps. Ed was poor IMO, do we drop him? Just saying it's not a simple selection

What's wrong with cohesion as a reason?

I think you are way over reading my comments
 
Last edited:

Mr_Plow

That name again...
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
10,599
Likes
29,380
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
76ers & Red Wings
Thread starter #1,206
People just like being negative. Last Sunday was the best win we've had for years. I've been to 8 premierships and not once walked away and said so and so played a shithouse game.
Not at all, just the realization that Hawthorn is a huge challenge (far beyond the Bulldogs who were insipid) and we need our best and most competitive team out there to win.

Nothing personal, no emotional underpinnings, just about getting the win we all crave.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Posts
1,954
Likes
3,284
AFL Club
Carlton
Well it seems that the logical extension of some views in this thread is that if we have a 15 win season moving forward we simply MUST have 15 unchanged 22s to follow them.
It's the only reasonable argument one can mount for retaining fav player/s who's performance/s simply don't warrant retention. While maintaining stability has merits, in this case its pure fluff.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Posts
1,975
Likes
4,678
AFL Club
Carlton
The MC will make that decision for us. No problems, but that point posed just doesn't stack up.

Hope counts for nothing...zilch. Hoping alone gets you nowhere. Only informed and positive actions should come into play.
I'd even give the 'I've just got a gut feel" some credit but hope......Just no.
I meant we should give him a go, as you said the MC will take care of the rest. I would like to see Cuningham in as well.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Farktherest

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Posts
11,146
Likes
17,161
AFL Club
Carlton
Cuningham has definitely been better although over a very small sample. We aren't exactly talking about 2 established stars either.

I rate both and have hope for their futures.

All I am saying is that IMO it isn't an automatic change and there are reasons for both to play. I have given mine.

I just get the impression on here that many just pick who they think is the best name without considering so many others variables, especially cohesion, team balance etc.

The major positive for me now is I trust the MC & Russell to select the best side to win. Been a long while since I could say that
Except Cunners for Polson doesn't have any negative impact on cohesion and team balance...it's still a speedy small for a speedy small, but Cunners is a better player right now and more versatile, being able to have stints in the middle.

I'm confident that if fit, the MC will pick Cunners over Polson this weekend.
 

agro

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Posts
3,117
Likes
5,746
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Sorry if it’s already been said.

But I’d play Charlie between the 50 metre arcs - with instructions to stay out of Forward line, unless he’s creating a mismatch.

Casboult stays in Forward line and provides relief rucking, I don’t want to see Harry McKay in the ruck thank you.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Posts
1,975
Likes
4,678
AFL Club
Carlton
Not at all, just the realization that Hawthorn is a huge challenge (far beyond the Bulldogs who were insipid) and we need our best and most competitive team out there to win.

Nothing personal, no emotional underpinnings, just about getting the win we all crave.
I'm a Cuningham fan, just defending Polson. I was at the footy 40 years ago and said to my old man that bloke wearing no 4 is hopeless, it took 2 years but that no 4 become no 11 with a headband. Never say never.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
49,895
Likes
64,050
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
We should never pick a side simply because we don't want to make a change. If these 2 players were similar in quality or played significantly different roles Polson might stay for team cohesion but to put team cohesion as our main priority "regardless of who is playing" is just ridiculous.
I don't know. I just don't get that notion for many reason I've already put forward.
A club has to strive to get their best team/squad onto the park, regardless of whether it has some wins, let alone one win, behind it.

Players that may have come back from injury, or have solid form behind them can't have senior exposure closed to them because.......whatever, unless of course there are players in front of them that have simply cemented their spots. i.e Hard for Macreadie to come in given Jones & Weitering.
Macreadie would now need to show absolutely irresistible form to be considered and he'd know that because it's obvious and he'd just get on with business.

Even Williamson may not have been considered this week as much as there wasn't a spot open to him, given the form of our backline, as much as him 'needing another week in the 2's'

Our forward line after the talls though - Needs a lot of work.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Posts
1,540
Likes
3,521
AFL Club
Carlton
Did I say Cuningham would throw out balance?

Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure. Was he great? No, but he has done the role well before. Too many people react quickly over one game. Is it enough to keep his spot? Not sure but a win helps. Ed was poor IMO, do we drop him? Just saying it's not a simple selection

What's wrong with cohesion as a reason?

I think you are way over reading my comments
If it was 1 game then fine, he has been ordinary in all 3 this year and most of his career. "Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure." And yet he hardly laid a tackle or a 1%er - not only was he not great he was quite poor.

"What's wrong with cohesion as a reason?" Because you are assuming you can't bring Cuningham in and have cohesion. You are mistaking "continuity" for "cohesion".
"Did I say Cuningham would throw out balance?" No and that is the point, you have said people are picking the best name at the expense of team balance and cohesion, but you are yet to prove that making the change would jeopardise either.

As for Ed, he was poor but was a mile better than Poslon.

"Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure." And yet he hardly laid a tackle or a 1%er - not only was he not great he was quite poor.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Posts
118
Likes
369
Location
My head
AFL Club
Carlton
As I said look at the alternatives. What has Polson showed that makes him worth taking over Cuningham? What is the risk reward?

The risk is that Cuningham would be underdone - which seems minimal given he has hardly missed a skills or fitness session and has been in full training for 2 weeks but most of all Russells track record.

The reward is that we get a player who is significantly better than Polson in every facet. The gap between them is vast.

On that basis Cuningham's selection seems a "must" to me.
I'd love to see any of the Polson backers take a shot at answering this question. I'm firmly in the Cuningham camp on this one, but if someone has an argument for why Polson is the better player then by all means make your case and I'll hear you out.

Arguments about team balance seem misplaced to me. Polson came in for Cuningham in Rd 2, so I'm not sure why reversing that change would suddenly throw our balance out.

Team cohesion -- by my count we've made 4 unforced changes to our teams so far this year, dropping Fasolo and Garlett in Rd 3, Polson in Rd 4, and Lobbe in Rd 5. We've also had 4 changes due to injury and 1 due to suspension. I'm not at all convinced that dropping Polson now is going to have some sort of detrimental effect on team cohesion.
 

Arr0w

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
13,777
Likes
30,163
Location
In Transit
AFL Club
Carlton
Cunningham has shown he knows how to crumb to a pack when the ball spills.

Polson has shown next to no ability to play this role.

A role we desperately need with our big forwards able to bring the ball to the ground through their contesting.
Team game, everyone has a role

Cuners has shown that ability at JLT level only
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Posts
2,544
Likes
2,202
Location
WA
AFL Club
Carlton
If it was 1 game then fine, he has been ordinary in all 3 this year and most of his career. "Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure." And yet he hardly laid a tackle or a 1%er - not only was he not great he was quite poor.

"What's wrong with cohesion as a reason?" Because you are assuming you can't bring Cuningham in and have cohesion. You are mistaking "continuity" for "cohesion".
"Did I say Cuningham would throw out balance?" No and that is the point, you have said people are picking the best name at the expense of team balance and cohesion, but you are yet to prove that making the change would jeopardise either.

As for Ed, he was poor but was a mile better than Poslon.

"Polson's role at the weekend was to shut down run and apply pressure." And yet he hardly laid a tackle or a 1%er - not only was he not great he was quite poor.
Spot on. There's no legitimate reason why he should be getting the spot over Cunningham. He's yet to show why he should be picked on a continual basis.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
49,895
Likes
64,050
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I meant we should give him a go, as you said the MC will take care of the rest. I would like to see Cuningham in as well.
Sorry Rob. Read that wrong.

No one should be anti any CFC player and if they are selected, even if we don't like it - Good for them.
Polson is a terrier and it's hard not to like what he puts his heart into doing. It's just that for now, a lot of that isn't looking so good.

He'd know that this is a stop-gap role for him and just as we found out last week with a mid performing better as a mid (Gibbons) Amazing!
 
Top Bottom