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

[Santo the king]

I think Teague over rates the talent. That is a real part of the problem.

Agree. Some of our downfall in games is based on tactics the players cant pull off.

 

[Red Bull]

He has no passion for our club. We need Carlton people in key positions and the best people in strategic areas.

Fraser Brown for president would be nice.

No Elliots though.

Liddle is a membership person. The rest ... not so much.

Hard to toss this monumental failing in both the front and back rows of the box

 

[Lace_Out]

He has no passion for our club. We need Carlton people in key positions and the best people in strategic areas.

Fraser Brown for president would be nice.

No Elliots though.

Liddle is a membership person. The rest ... not so much.

The club needs to look further than our own, this is part of our ongoing problem.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Blue_Fusion]

The club needs to look further than our own, this is part of our ongoing problem.

Why is that an ongoing problem?

Malthouse was an outsider (I know not a board member but still...) and he gutted our list and set us back probably 10 years by the looks of things...

 

[Lace_Out]

Why is that an ongoing problem?

Malthouse was an outsider (I know not a board member but still...) and he gutted our list and set us back probably 10 years by the looks of things...

Ratten and Teague were not outsiders.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[DangerousD]

Agree with this: which is what most have been saying on here all year.
Once the opposition turn the scoring tap on, the Blues have to rely on skill rather than system to turn it off. When skill deserts them opposition scores flow like the Amazon.

Don't agree with this, no system, unity or team work, exposes our weaknesses and makes players look less than they are, a good system will hide a teams flaws. Ours are on display for all to see.

The Blues spent plenty of capital at the wrong time to secure Zac Williams and Adam Saad and while Cripps is a great player and leader he is not going to move into the Dustin Martin, Marcus Bontempelli or Christian Petracca class.

Obvious and in plain sight:

By the start of 2022 the new president Luke Sayers must have everyone associated with Carlton believing in who is in charge and pointing in the same direction.

The line regarding Cripps is a bit off, when did Petracca, move in to Petraccas class? I think it was only this season, Cripps had over 20 possessions and 3 goals on the weekend, I’m very hopeful it’s just his body holding him back.

 

[Coops93]

The line regarding Cripps is a bit off, when did Petracca, move in to Petraccas class? I think it was only this season, Cripps had over 20 possessions and 3 goals on the weekend, I’m very hopeful it’s just his body holding him back.

Only 2 years ago Cripps some were saying Cripps is the best player in the game. He was certainly ahead of Bontompelli and Petracca at the time.

Since then he's slipped off and they've overtaken him, but it's not as though he can't be in that class considering he already has been.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Ratten and Teague were not outsiders.

Pagan was an outsider and so was Bolton..

So we've gone, outside, inside, outside, outside, inside

That's 2/5 that are/were Carlton people...

So that doesn't answer how bringing Carlton people in are an ongoing problem?

Just trying to ascertain why it's necessary to bring in outsiders in order to obtain success?

 

[Blue Pulse]

The line regarding Cripps is a bit off, when did Petracca, move in to Petraccas class? I think it was only this season, Cripps had over 20 possessions and 3 goals on the weekend, I’m very hopeful it’s just his body holding him back.

The criticism of individuals in a team sport is ridiculous, especially in our side which has a poor team game plan and set up. If we were winning and playing as a team, Cripps would just be a piece of the puzzle, as he is not carrying us to victory on his own, the boots are in, even on this site the criticism is over the top.

The classic example is Richmond, they slip back to the field, now Dusty is out. Great team plan and all are on the same page, one player doesn't play well, not as noticeable. They still win games with big players out due to their game plan, however they now lose their x factor in tight games where a 5 min burst of brilliance from Martin wins them the game.

Easier to play well when your team is performing as a team and your left to concentrate on your role, Petracca last year v this year

 

[Gethelred]

Pagan was an outsider and so was Bolton..

So we've gone, outside, inside, outside, outside, inside

That's 2/5 that are/were Carlton people...

So that doesn't answer how bringing Carlton people in are an ongoing problem?

Just trying to ascertain why it's necessary to bring in outsiders in order to obtain success?

Necessary? Probably not. A good idea, though?

I probably don't have to quote all the '20 years of mediocrity' posts to you to point out that the Carlton people from this side of the millennium - during which footy has changed an awful lot - haven't been the most successful. To keep going to that well risks a) further disenfranchising club greats from the club, as happens when they leave acrimoniously once fired for not being successful, and b) that they're going to try to run the team/club as though it's 1995, or 2001.

While there are candidates and footy people (Fitzpatrick, for example) that don't fit that so much, there's an awful lot of people who think their footy knowledge - while better than mine - is relevant to 2021 footy, despite the last time they were inside the strategy meetings was when they played themselves.

Footy's changed, and going back risks a few things.

 

[thylacine60]

excellent that we continue to grow the integrity of the club under enormous pressure on-field - it's the way to go although some would have us culturally and ethically bankrupt as long as we were winning.......the chicken and egg paradigm is a curious one..........

Blues extend voting rights, recognise game’s Indigenous origins

The Carlton Football Club will recognise women and Indigenous people in its constitution, and allow AFL members who support the Blues to vote in club elections.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Gethelred]

excellent that we continue to grow the integrity of the club under enormous pressure on-field - it's the way to go although some would have us culturally and ethically bankrupt as long as we were winning.......the chicken and egg paradigm is a curious one..........

Blues extend voting rights, recognise game’s Indigenous origins

The Carlton Football Club will recognise women and Indigenous people in its constitution, and allow AFL members who support the Blues to vote in club elections.

www.theage.com.au

You watch, though. Some splendid chestnut of a poster at some point over the next week or so is going to proffer the opinion that 'maybe they should pay more attention to winning games of football than to social issues', with varying degrees of hiding their actual motives behind their words.

 

[thylacine60]

You watch, though. Some splendid chestnut of a poster at some point over the next week or so is going to proffer the opinion that 'maybe they should pay more attention to winning games of football than to social issues', with varying degrees of hiding their actual motives behind their words.

ha, already seen multiple of those efforts - win at all costs, treat people like garbage in the meantime - now that's a club I can really support!!

 

[branedotorg]

You watch, though. Some splendid chestnut of a poster at some point over the next week or so is going to proffer the opinion that 'maybe they should pay more attention to winning games of football than to social issues', with varying degrees of hiding their actual motives behind their words.

ALPHAS ONLY VOTING NOW

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Necessary? Probably not. A good idea, though?

I probably don't have to quote all the '20 years of mediocrity' posts to you to point out that the Carlton people from this side of the millennium - during which footy has changed an awful lot - haven't been the most successful. To keep going to that well risks a) further disenfranchising club greats from the club, as happens when they leave acrimoniously once fired for not being successful, and b) that they're going to try to run the team/club as though it's 1995, or 2001.

While there are candidates and footy people (Fitzpatrick, for example) that don't fit that so much, there's an awful lot of people who think their footy knowledge - while better than mine - is relevant to 2021 footy, despite the last time they were inside the strategy meetings was when they played themselves.

Footy's changed, and going back risks a few things.

Yeah but just because some haven't been doesn't mean all won't be.

Was SOS bad for our club?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

ha, already seen multiple of those efforts - win at all costs, treat people like garbage in the meantime - now that's a club I can really support!!

Where did anybody say we should treat people like garbage?

Where did people say we should "win at all costs"?

Why do you have such an agenda to label people on here?

 

[DangerousD]

excellent that we continue to grow the integrity of the club under enormous pressure on-field - it's the way to go although some would have us culturally and ethically bankrupt as long as we were winning.......the chicken and egg paradigm is a curious one..........

Blues extend voting rights, recognise game’s Indigenous origins

The Carlton Football Club will recognise women and Indigenous people in its constitution, and allow AFL members who support the Blues to vote in club elections.

www.theage.com.au

But but, our core business is football.

 

[branedotorg]

But but, our core business is football.

including AFLW

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah but just because some haven't been doesn't mean all won't be.

Was SOS bad for our club?

Dude, you asked a question, I gave you what I thought was an answer. I don't have any preference either way, beyond seeing a general need for a wide variety of viewpoints.

The question 'was SOS bad for our club' is decidedly too broad. You referring to his list management, his playing career, his brief stint as a flutist at the Cranbourne Philharmonic?

If you're talking about his list management, my thoughts are fairly well known; I know what he was trying to do, but I have my doubts we needed to cut so deep and so hard, and I doubt we needed to select (via trades and the draft) one tall for every small. Doing so left us extremely short through the middle of the ground - a problem that persists to this day - and it left us extremely vulnerable to injury to the leaders on each line. He also went for the smaller, supposedly more talented mids - SPS, Dow, O'Brien - over the bigger bodied more immediately ready midfielders in each draft; it's fine to do it once, but over and over and over meant that these players wouldn't be able to compete across the board for at least 3-4 seasons, and this has borne out. It's only really now that Dow and SPS can shrug a tackle at AFL level.

I think he had too much power within list management, and it formed a huge part of why he was ousted. He and Brodie did a sensational job when they arrived, given the lack of - you know - a list management department; it's actually amazing that they hit as often as they seem to. But his legacy as a list manager at Carlton is mixed, to say the least.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Dude, you asked a question, I gave you what I thought was an answer. I don't have any preference either way, beyond seeing a general need for a wide variety of viewpoints.

The question 'was SOS bad for our club' is decidedly too broad. You referring to his list management, his playing career, his brief stint as a flutist at the Cranbourne Philharmonic?

If you're talking about his list management, my thoughts are fairly well known; I know what he was trying to do, but I have my doubts we needed to cut so deep and so hard, and I doubt we needed to select (via trades and the draft) one tall for every small. Doing so left us extremely short through the middle of the ground - a problem that persists to this day - and it left us extremely vulnerable to injury to the leaders on each line. He also went for the smaller, supposedly more talented mids - SPS, Dow, O'Brien - over the bigger bodied more immediately ready midfielders in each draft; it's fine to do it once, but over and over and over meant that these players wouldn't be able to compete across the board for at least 3-4 seasons, and this has borne out. It's only really now that Dow and SPS can shrug a tackle at AFL level.

I think he had too much power within list management, and it formed a huge part of why he was ousted. He and Brodie did a sensational job when they arrived, given the lack of - you know - a list management department; it's actually amazing that they hit as often as they seem to. But his legacy as a list manager at Carlton is mixed, to say the least.

Dude? Hey, you give an answer that pretty much puts all past Carlton people in one basket as if to say we're better off without any of them..."

What do you reckon I was referring to when I asked about SOS? Oh wait don't answer that, you knew because it was pretty obvious hence, you talked only about his list management role. So if you knew, why try and be a smart arse asking about a "brief stint as a flutist at the Cranbourne Philharmonic"??

But hey, you're all for treating people with respect right?

 

[Gethelred]

Dude? Hey, you give an answer that pretty much puts all past Carlton people in one basket as if to say we're better off without any of them..."

Nope. You asked a question - another broad one - and I gave you an answer as to why people could see things that way.

Take a deep breath.

What do you reckon I was referring to when I asked about SOS? Oh wait don't answer that, you knew because it was pretty obvious hence, you talked only about his list management role. So if you knew, why try and be a smart arse asking about a "brief stint as a flutist at the Cranbourne Philharmonic"??

But hey, you're all for treating people with respect right?

???

You're acquainted with levity, right? You need to calm down. You're being a bit abrasive at the moment, looking for an argument.

Or were you desperately hoping that I would keep his failed period as their woodwind leader a secret, did you?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Nope. You asked a question - another broad one - and I gave you an answer as to why people could see things that way.

Take a deep breath.


???

You're acquainted with levity, right? You need to calm down. You're being a bit abrasive at the moment, looking for an argument.

Or were you desperately hoping that I would keep his failed period as their woodwind leader a secret, did you?

I am calm. But if you want to preach respect, best you practice it first.

It wasn't a broad question at all... It was actually very specific. I asked you about a former Carlton player who had a hand in list management and whether you thought he was good for our club or not.

You point to the lack of talls and big bodied mids...

Is Setterfield not a big bodied mid? How about Kennedy? Both highly rated and in the system for a couple of years and much better placed to step in and make an impact than most draftees...

He took Dow ahead of Cerra and SPS ahead of who? Will Brodie? Powell-Pepper?

LOB was supposed to be a player that provides run and class. An area we still lack in today to the point where we're putting Cottrell out there...

We had a midfield full of aging players lead by Cripps who had to carry them week in, week out. Then Gibbs walked. We severely lacked pace and Dow's ability to win the ball and burst from packs was seen as an extremely beneficial attribute to add to our line up.

As for the talls, he was widely criticised by some for taking too many early on... but you can thank Mr Austin for giving three of them the flick last year...

 

[Gethelred]

I am calm. But if you want to preach respect, best you practice it first.

I'd be interested in hearing specifically where I was disrespectful.

In any case, though, it's probably worth saying that respect is earned, and you're being rather rude.

It wasn't a broad question at all... It was actually very specific. I asked you about a former Carlton player who had a hand in list management and whether you thought he was good for our club or not.

You said this:

Was SOS bad for our club?

In what way is this not a broad question? Need I define what a broad question is first?

You point to the lack of talls and big bodied mids...

Is Setterfield not a big bodied mid? How about Kennedy? Both highly rated and in the system for a couple of years and much better placed to step in and make an impact than most draftees...

I point to a lack of players taken ready to play AFL level immediately, and a desire to cut players that have demonstrated that they had rather a lot of footy to give.

Henderson got us McKay, but what if instead of drafting both Harry and Charlie, we had gotten just one? Instead of trading Tuohy, we'd retained him? Gibbs couldn't have been convinced to remain?

Did we have to cut as hard and completely as we did?

He took Dow ahead of Cerra and SPS ahead of who? Will Brodie? Powell-Pepper?

TPK ahead of Worpel as well.

LOB was supposed to be a player that provides run and class. An area we still lack in today to the point where we're putting Cottrell out there...

We had a midfield full of aging players lead by Cripps who had to carry them week in, week out. Then Gibbs walked. We severely lacked pace and Dow's ability to win the ball and burst from packs was seen as an extremely beneficial attribute to add to our line up.

Dow is not the selection I'm disputing. In isolation, the selection is fine; collectively, he's drafted a single 'ready to go' midfielder in Kennedy who then proceeded to have precisely the same injury he had at the giants which has hampered him all the way through.

It's the critical mass of small, light bodied and not immediate impact players that I'm criticising. They're there in every draft; SOS selected for ceiling, not floor, and that's my issue.

If we were more attractive earlier, could we have lured Jack Steele? What would we look like then?

As for the talls, he was widely criticised by some for taking too many early on... but you can thank Mr Austin for giving three of them the flick last year...

... you're not reading this with an interest in understanding, BF.

Go pick an argument with someone else if you're smarting for one.

 

[thylacine60]

Nope. You asked a question - another broad one - and I gave you an answer as to why people could see things that way.

Take a deep breath.


???

You're acquainted with levity, right? You need to calm down. You're being a bit abrasive at the moment, looking for an argument.

Or were you desperately hoping that I would keep his failed period as their woodwind leader a secret, did you?

lie down with dogs, geth...........

 

[goreds]

I'd be interested in hearing specifically where I was disrespectful.

In any case, though, it's probably worth saying that respect is earned, and you're being rather rude.

You said this:

In what way is this not a broad question? Need I define what a broad question is first?

I point to a lack of players taken ready to play AFL level immediately, and a desire to cut players that have demonstrated that they had rather a lot of footy to give.

Henderson got us McKay, but what if instead of drafting both Harry and Charlie, we had gotten just one? Instead of trading Tuohy, we'd retained him? Gibbs couldn't have been convinced to remain?

Did we have to cut as hard and completely as we did?

TPK ahead of Worpel as well.


Dow is not the selection I'm disputing. In isolation, the selection is fine; collectively, he's drafted a single 'ready to go' midfielder in Kennedy who then proceeded to have precisely the same injury he had at the giants which has hampered him all the way through.

It's the critical mass of small, light bodied and not immediate impact players that I'm criticising. They're there in every draft; SOS selected for ceiling, not floor, and that's my issue.

If we were more attractive earlier, could we have lured Jack Steele? What would we look like then?


... you're not reading this with an interest in understanding, BF.

Go pick an argument with someone else if you're smarting for one.

Are you trying to get your Quote score up Geth!!!!!