Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
No actually he wasn't, due to covid, he had to take a hair cut on his agreed payment for the first year of the front ended contract

All player took that cut though, and there was an AFLPA negotiation for players like Martin who had a big contract year for the cut to be applied across their average wage, not the high year.
 
I think it's how the coach wants them to play. Ever since he's been hired he's talked about how he wants to play extra attacking. The natural inclination then is to surge forward, which we often do. Little bit of downhills skier in it but I believe it's what they're instructed to do. As soon as you win the ball get forward.

Unfortunately they misread whether we'd won the ball or not, it was still essentially in the contest and everyone bailed forward leaving Dow as a helpless lamb surrounded by wolves.
If you go back and look at the first 30 seconds of the first game of the year you will see Ed rather than shepherd or even block Prestia so Newnes could take control of the ball, he chooses to run to a receive position so of course Prestia does a very straight forward tackle where we should have won the ball.

The mind set from a very senior player was there for all to see then and nothing has changed now. Ed's courage and dogged commitment to win the ball can never be questioned but he set very poor example for our younger brigade that night.

The mindset became contagious.

Whether that mind set is directed by the coaching fraternity or by selfishness I don't know, you would have to be in the inner circle.

DOWNHILL SKIERS yes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's absolutely game based!!

What people fail to realise is the Teague gameplan has players constantly running forward, then back, rinse and repeat.

Other sides shuffle, forward, back, sideways and are setup up with numbers behind the ball, or at the turnover

So when they show that footage of Hooper, Kelly, Whitfield, etc, working past us, our players are already spent, only so many repeat sprints a player has in him

This is highlighted by the numbers, where our collective workrate/sprints, shows that it isn't a lack of workrate

View attachment 1161014
View attachment 1161016
View attachment 1161017
View attachment 1161018

I actually don't understand what this is showing.

The top 2 indicate we have an average speed in defence of 7.5km/h and in attack of 7.8km/h. That is walking speed? I know it's comparable to GWS, but what does it actually represent?

The repeat sprints are basically equal, so yes, we are not bludging from an overall perspective. But this hardly indicates we are doing way more unproductive running from a game plan point of view does it?

I would hazard a guess that our load is being carried by fewer, to take up the slack of others, thus tiring the fitter ones at a greater rate than GWS's. I might be looking at this wrongly, but we could have 12 players do the same amount of sprints spread across 18 GWS players, causing our better runners to blow up quicker?

I'm not trying to argue here, but couldn't it still indicate (or at least not rule out) that our motivation/intent to run hard across the whole 22 is lacking, therefore the game plan doesn't have a hope in hell of working?
 
That got dark quickly

in context, if he loves the club and wants to make it great, he shouldn’t be picky over who the club chooses to coach him….that is what got us into the current mess.

I understand that point of view, but professional athletes have a short career.
It's probably fair to say that Samo is not currently reaching the potential that he (and we) think he has.
Whoever is coaching us next year might have a pretty big influence on how his entire career goes, given that he's at somewhat of a crossroads. Don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question.
 
That got dark quickly

in context, if he loves the club and wants to make it great, he shouldn’t be picky over who the club chooses to coach him….that is what got us into the current mess.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Can love the club and still want to do the right thing for his own relatively short career. If we can't secure some decent coaches then you couldn't blame him for going to a club that can actually develop him properly.
 
I understand that point of view, but professional athletes have a short career.
It's probably fair to say that Samo is not currently reaching the potential that he (and we) think he has.
Whoever is coaching us next year might have a pretty big influence on how his entire career goes, given that he's at somewhat of a crossroads. Don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question.
At this stage SPS should see any change as a good change, the old coaching crew have done diddly squat for his development and career.

it’s probably journalistic clock bait anyway, but I don’t like the players having any say whatsoever in our next coach. the tail is wagging the dog.


Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

no need for that. I am coming from the assumption that the coaching staff is extensively changed. if nothing changes I wouldn’t blame SPS wanting to leave. I just don’t want players picking and choosing, they do that enough on game day.
 
I actually don't understand what this is showing.

The top 2 indicate we have an average speed in defence of 7.5km/h and in attack of 7.8km/h. That is walking speed? I know it's comparable to GWS, but what does it actually represent?

The repeat sprints are basically equal, so yes, we are not bludging from an overall perspective. But this hardly indicates we are doing way more unproductive running from a game plan point of view does it?

I would hazard a guess that our load is being carried by fewer, to take up the slack of others, thus tiring the fitter ones at a greater rate than GWS's. I might be looking at this wrongly, but we could have 12 players do the same amount of sprints spread across 18 GWS players, causing our better runners to blow up quicker?

I'm not trying to argue here, but couldn't it still indicate (or at least not rule out) that our motivation/intent to run hard across the whole 22 is lacking, therefore the game plan doesn't have a hope in hell of working?

It indicates that we're doing similar work to the opposition, so it's not a fitness issue that sees us getting smashed.
The problem is that because our system and structure is so bad, that our work is inefficient.
 
I actually don't understand what this is showing.

The top 2 indicate we have an average speed in defence of 7.5km/h and in attack of 7.8km/h. That is walking speed? I know it's comparable to GWS, but what does it actually represent?

The repeat sprints are basically equal, so yes, we are not bludging from an overall perspective. But this hardly indicates we are doing way more unproductive running from a game plan point of view does it?

I would hazard a guess that our load is being carried by fewer, to take up the slack of others, thus tiring the fitter ones at a greater rate than GWS's. I might be looking at this wrongly, but we could have 12 players do the same amount of sprints spread across 18 GWS players, causing our better runners to blow up quicker?

I'm not trying to argue here, but couldn't it still indicate (or at least not rule out) that our motivation/intent to run hard across the whole 22 is lacking, therefore the game plan doesn't have a hope in hell of working?

The numbers indicate the average speed of all players, while in possession, or not in possession

Total sprints is at 24KM/H or more, repeat sprints at the same rate, within 60 seconds

So as a whole, our workrate was on par or better

So, as many have suggested, it is more gameplan, tactics and structure that is hurting us
 
It indicates that we're doing similar work to the opposition, so it's not a fitness issue that sees us getting smashed.
The problem is that because our system and structure is so bad, that our work is inefficient.
But does it?

Why can't it be indicating that because we have unfit, underdone, poor tank players like Williams, Martin, Dow, Cripps - the others are over-working to compensate?

The other aspect of inefficiency is the skill errors and turnovers. If we make more, we run more. That is not game plan per se?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

But does it?

Why can't it be indicating that because we have unfit, underdone, poor tank players like Williams, Martin, Dow, Cripps - the others are over-working to compensate?

The other aspect of inefficiency is the skill errors and turnovers. If we make more, we run more. That is not game plan per se?

It certainly can be about game plan.
If you can move the ball to a player who is not under pressure, they're more likely to use the ball better. If they have an option who is also not under pressure, the kick can be a little bit off, and still be marked, or gathered, and kept in control.

I think it's easiest to see at our stoppages (and why I was so critical of Barker as our stoppages coach).
We win the ball, but are immediately under pressure, and so it's a pressured handball to a player also under pressure, or a hack kick forward. But when we lose the stoppage, the ball goes out to a free player, who then has time to deliver the ball. It's why Collingwood, and other teams, were able to open us up so easily.
 
Really?
Maybe new senior and assistant coaches will want to know who HE is. Another fine example of poor culture and attitude in players.
Burst the bubble!!!

Pretty poor take so I assume you had enough of the 5 years.

Having a good stretch of form in the VFL with 9 tackles on the weekend shows he actually gives a *.

Its no suprise players who drafted as midfielders dominate in the VFL then playing some random position on the A-Team and suck at it.
 
The numbers indicate the average speed of all players, while in possession, or not in possession

Total sprints is at 24KM/H or more, repeat sprints at the same rate, within 60 seconds

So as a whole, our workrate was on par or better

So, as many have suggested, it is more gameplan, tactics and structure that is hurting us

Thanks for explaining.

We are certainly not collectively lazy, otherwise we would be getting belted. As I said to Stamos, the workrate can indicate other problems with the spread of workload and turnovers.

Too many of you guys are adamant that it is predominantly game plan and I'm not really disputing that, just putting forward some Devil's Advocate options. We just haven't seemed to get bang for our buck on the scoreboard during our periods of relative dominance. We should have been 6 goals up on the Bulldogs and we dominated the second quarter against Sydney for little reward. Then heads drop, confidence evaporates and no game plan works.
 
Thanks for explaining.

We are certainly not collectively lazy, otherwise we would be getting belted. As I said to Stamos, the workrate can indicate other problems with the spread of workload and turnovers.

Too many of you guys are adamant that it is predominantly game plan and I'm not really disputing that, just putting forward some Devil's Advocate options. We just haven't seemed to get bang for our buck on the scoreboard during our periods of relative dominance. We should have been 6 goals up on the Bulldogs and we dominated the second quarter against Sydney for little reward. Then heads drop, confidence evaporates and no game plan works.

We do score heavily if it clicks, but there are a number of factors as to why we don't truly capitalize

We still have critical turnover at that pivotal point at HF, mainly due to wanting that counter quick, but predominantly long and many intercepts occur here.

Lost count how many times we have the ball in the forward arc and still want to give it off, again turnover. Conversely, players are still trying the impossible shot, rather than willing to take more time, absorb the hit will centring the ball to the hotspot

When someone does finally decide to take the shot, for some bizzare reason, they think it's a 15 second clock, rather than composing themselves and taking all of the allotted time

We lack composure all over the ground, and we refuse to control the pill
 
The numbers indicate the average speed of all players, while in possession, or not in possession

Total sprints is at 24KM/H or more, repeat sprints at the same rate, within 60 seconds

So as a whole, our workrate was on par or better

So, as many have suggested, it is more gameplan, tactics and structure that is hurting us

I suggest people go do a beep test on the weekend and see how the feel afterwards. High speed sprints its tough especially running back and forth.

Like the vision OTC showed like 4 playesr running away from the contest when Dow recieved the pill, then you ask them to sprint back when they are already like 20-30 meters away from the contest when they lose. Pretty comical tbh.
 
We do score heavily if it clicks, but there are a number of factors as to why we don't truly capitalize

We still have critical turnover at that pivotal point at HF, mainly due to wanting that counter quick, but predominantly long and many intercepts occur here.

Lost count how many times we have the ball in the forward arc and still want to give it off, again turnover. Conversely, players are still trying the impossible shot, rather than willing to take more time, absorb the hit will centring the ball to the hotspot

When someone does finally decide to take the shot, for some bizzare reason, they think it's a 15 second clock, rather than composing themselves and taking all of the allotted time

We lack composure all over the ground, and we refuse to control the pill

I agree, nothing annoys me more than you are not taking the full 30 seconds to take your shot. Give your midfielders a break and let the defensive structure set up.
 
Thanks for explaining.

We are certainly not collectively lazy, otherwise we would be getting belted. As I said to Stamos, the workrate can indicate other problems with the spread of workload and turnovers.

Too many of you guys are adamant that it is predominantly game plan and I'm not really disputing that, just putting forward some Devil's Advocate options. We just haven't seemed to get bang for our buck on the scoreboard during our periods of relative dominance. We should have been 6 goals up on the Bulldogs and we dominated the second quarter against Sydney for little reward. Then heads drop, confidence evaporates and no game plan works.

It's also worth remembering that according to Teague, what we've seen in recent games isn't the real game plan -- it's a failure to execute the game plan. The actual game plan as envisaged by the coaches, if executed properly, would look different.

That said, even if you accept Teague's statement as true it doesn't exonerate the game plan completely. One can still pose pertinent questions like: why is the game plan so hard to execute? And why is there so little margin for error that failing to execute it properly makes us look so average? But it does suggest there's a bit more nuance to it than just Game Plan Bad.
 
I’d prefer to jump to conclusions. It’s the only exercise I get.
I can recommend running away from your responsibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top