Remove this Banner Ad

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just some thoughts on Blue Pulse 's commentary on academies

AFL is a game for smaller bodied faster runner or tall KPP types who are fast runners - it has stopped being a game for all body types. The typical AFL teen in NSW isnt big enough, strong enough to play rugby code and isnt skilled enough to have a chance to make it in soccer. There are no schoolboy heroes playing AFL. The best comparison that can be made is Melbourne Storm - where are they going to source local talented kids in Melb?

So the academies are a brilliant initiative in trying to make a space for kids interested in AFL a place where they can focus on what it takes to make it as a potential AFL player. There is no 'magic' in the occassioonal excellent draftee from academies - it is just law of large numbers in operaration and a lot of hard work from young boys and whatever assistance they can get from AFL enthiusiasts volunteering to coach.

Once selected into AFL - there is no doubt that Sydney is one of the better development Clubs. They have invested in their youth and insist on standards of physical and skills development in line with best practise.

Carlton has just got its own reserves Club in 2021 we as a CLub ceded development of youth to affiliated Club(s) who always had their own agendas which was fair enough too - this has always been the biggest issue behind inability to develop young players - and the #1 issue why Carlton has not become a sustainable finals team in AFL. How many people on this forum have stated that Carlton VFL is a negative space for talented kids to develop?

I want people to understand what giving away 20 years of proper development control actually means for where Carlton is coming from - essentially handing competitive and strategic advantage over to most of our AFL competitors at best a limp wristed wave of the arm regarding investing in youth and getting the most out of young draftees.

That is where the Board and management has failed Carlton the most.

We will only begin to get the real benefit of our reserves team over the medium term - and only if proper investment in good coaches and staff is also made there. Bothers me to read that young draftees are pizzed orf with the lack of support they get versus their peers in other Clubs - this has to be fixed now and to read that the CLub is only now spending 200k to do a 'benchmarking test' on best practise for developing youth- - now that is just pathetic.

Looking in from the outside - we are over invested in administration and under invested in hands on development - and trying to play catch up at a time when the AFL has madated less development budgets - forcing a reduction in paid professional development staff. This means that as a starting player in proper development - without any real systems or IP or prcoess that have been proven in place we will continue to be in a disadvantaged position until at lest we have the same overall framework in place that the better teams do. If we want to know when the Club is actually doiung well - look at the performance of the VFL team versus its competitors in AFL.
They don't and never really have. Outside of the Storm, league in Vic in non-existent and the concept of some kind of 'local feeder path' is bordering on fantasy.

The Rebels do ok out of it now, there's a reasonable local rugby comp here and the kids are making their way up into the Rebels/Super Rugby/Wallabies. Jordan Uelese, Rob Leota, Trevor Hosea, big Pone Fa’amausili, Rob Valentini who moved to the Brumbies, etc. They used to have to move away to other states to make it (Matt Toomua, Christian Leali'ifano, Digby Ioane, Rocky Elsom, etc) but now come through their local development and feeder system. The keep an eye on them and work with them from an early age and try and steer them through the pathway.

With our reserves, I think you're right in that it's a medium term prospect to reach a point of significant change. However I think it's also going to be pretty much instantaneous to start seeing some benefit. Being able to share tactics/structure/gameplan (provided we sort out what we're doing in the seniors...) and selecting our AFL listed players in their position, rather than more senior VFL-only players getting ahead of them, means our boys in the twos can actually work on their game. Stocker, Carroll, Philp playing mid, Durden small forward, Cottrell and O'Brien on the wings, etc.
 

Interesting and damning read...not surprising as it matches what we would have expected watching our games.

We are dead last for pressure in the competition and for tackling differential over the first 2 rounds. We have also conceded the most points from turnovers.

We all saw how Richmond and Collingwood were able to transition the ball with ease and how our midfield applied very little defensive pressure on the ball carrier, leading to lace out passes to their forwards.

We are far too easy to play against right now.
Didn't realise w1 was the 3rd most inside 50s we've ever conceded, how can anyone pretend we played well if that's the case. The defense played ****ing outstandingly and the rest of the field horrendous.

W2 was just a case of the defense unable to replicate their w1 ridiculously good performance. Everywhere else, same issues.
 

Interesting and damning read...not surprising as it matches what we would have expected watching our games.

We are dead last for pressure in the competition and for tackling differential over the first 2 rounds. We have also conceded the most points from turnovers.

We all saw how Richmond and Collingwood were able to transition the ball with ease and how our midfield applied very little defensive pressure on the ball carrier, leading to lace out passes to their forwards.

We are far too easy to play against right now.

We need to narrow the field, hence more numbers around the contest/turnovers. It will also allow us to force more opposition turnovers

Teague's setup looks like a touch footy environment
 
Didn't realise w1 was the 3rd most inside 50s we've ever conceded, how can anyone pretend we played well if that's the case. The defense played ******* outstandingly and the rest of the field horrendous.

W2 was just a case of the defense unable to replicate their w1 ridiculously good performance. Everywhere else, same issues.

Yep, at no point in either game did we look to have control except Q3 against Collingwood.

At all other times we looked like we were always 'just hanging on' and for the most part Richmond and Collingwood's midfield cut through us with relative ease.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

We need to narrow the field, hence more numbers around the contest/turnovers. It will also allow us to force more opposition turnovers

Teague's setup looks like a touch footy environment

Teh stats alluded to in the article repeat what I have been saying pretty much for a year - Carlton doesn't tackle. Part of that may well be too much spread - but mor of that is what the coaching team have ignored and that is focussing between the arcs on playing much closer to your direct opponent.

Teague probably gets an A- for attack and an F for defensive focus - if it isn't Teague- then it is his player selection. He cant be picking players soley because they are better eat executing attack - when the same players cost games because they are lousy at defense. That is just dumb football. Player lack of awareness or inability to stay with direct opponent and lay tackles when they have to be made - is teh difference between a win or a loss against most sides. every side is good enough to kick a score if you allow their midfield to dominate with ball in hand.

tldr? teague needs to pick more tacklers and if that means a slower attacking capability - so be it.
 
We need to narrow the field, hence more numbers around the contest/turnovers. It will also allow us to force more opposition turnovers

Teague's setup looks like a touch footy environment

I'm not sure we have the cattle to pull off Teague's game plan, though mentality would appear to be an issue as well.

Since he wants to spread the field so much it's quite an attacking game plan that requires a team full of strong endurance runners and relatively quick, agile players IMO. I wouldn't say it's that different to some of the top teams right now like Port and Richmond, but we're not pulling it off.

A midfield that includes Cripps/Dow/Setterfield IMO is just too slow and lacking agility, which leads to a lack of defensive pressure and spread. Not a lot of running power there compared to some other AFL teams and they get exposed in quick games where there's so much space. Some lesser lights who are quick/agile were good against us like Bolton and Daicos...we couldn't lay a hand on them.

The forward line is not without blame. Casboult has clearly been impacted by injury, so right now he's not providing much offensively or defensively. Harry is quick and agile but doesn't use it defensively that much...he kicked 4 goals on Moore but Moore won a lot of contests that led to quick rebound as well. Murphy's defensive pressure is very poor.

So I think some of our players don't suit the game plan, but having said that it's amazing what a difference a better defensive attitude and a 'hunt them' mentality could make.
 
I'm not sure we have the cattle to pull off Teague's game plan, though mentality would appear to be an issue as well.

Since he wants to spread the field so much it's quite an attacking game plan that requires a team full of strong endurance runners and relatively quick, agile players IMO. I wouldn't say it's that different to some of the top teams right now like Port and Richmond, but we're not pulling it off.

A midfield that includes Cripps/Dow/Setterfield IMO is just too slow and lacking agility, which leads to a lack of defensive pressure and spread. Not a lot of running power there compared to some other AFL teams and they get exposed in quick games where there's so much space. Some lesser lights who are quick/agile were good against us like Bolton and Daicos...we couldn't lay a hand on them.

The forward line is not without blame. Casboult has clearly been impacted by injury, so right now he's not providing much offensively or defensively. Harry is quick and agile but doesn't use it defensively that much...he kicked 4 goals on Moore but Moore won a lot of contests that led to quick rebound as well. Murphy's defensive pressure is very poor.

So I think some of our players don't suit the game plan, but having said that it's amazing what a difference a better defensive attitude and a 'hunt them' mentality could make.
Why does Dow continue to get chances and O’Brien doesn’t ?
Dow had had considerable more opportunities yet O’Brien has a bad game (like a lot of players did) but oh no he’s gone. Endurance equals O’Brien’s strength I would have thought.
Obrien in for Dow this week is my bet.
 
Why does Dow continue to get chances and O’Brien doesn’t ?
Dow had had considerable more opportunities yet O’Brien has a bad game (like a lot of players did) but oh no he’s gone. Endurance equals O’Brien’s strength I would have thought.
Obrien in for Dow this week is my bet.
O'Brien is a better tackle a better runner and has better endurance and is also a better kick - but he is a wingman. Dow (apparently) has burst speed and is an onballer- although he spends most of his time as a pretend forward when not sucking air on the bench.

Kennedy/Lob are better players - have to watch Stocker play to add him to the the list - if he ever gets a game that is.
 
O'Brien is a better tackle a better runner and has better endurance and is also a better kick - but he is a wingman. Dow (apparently) has burst speed and is an onballer- although he spends most of his time as a pretend forward when not sucking air on the bench.

Kennedy/Lob are better players - have to watch Stocker play to add him to the the list - if he ever gets a game that is.
True. I remember when sos was air pumping regarding stocker trade and it’s the old question, is it the player or the development?
 
True. I remember when sos was air pumping regarding stocker trade and it’s the old question, is it the player or the development?

He isnt getting a go and neither are a few others - simple as that. Teague preferred to play with one KPF and Levi on one leg - which made him worse than useless - whilst not giving Kennedy a go - just another example.

teh football Club showed a stupid video of Stocker sort of wrestling with Ed ina. trining drill -all it showed was Ed having Stockjer on his back - not disposing of the ball and and Stocker ending up on teh ground with Ed giving him a cop that look - bizarro stuff ..

It is the one huge criticism I have of Teague and his MC - bizarre selections and playing players out of position who cactually then fail and are part of the reason(s) we lost - especially Collingwood.
 
Why does Dow continue to get chances and O’Brien doesn’t ?
Dow had had considerable more opportunities yet O’Brien has a bad game (like a lot of players did) but oh no he’s gone. Endurance equals O’Brien’s strength I would have thought.
Obrien in for Dow this week is my bet.
That's my take on it as well.
LOB laid the most tackles for the team in round 1, and was equal second for work rate in attack, something that people seem to overlook.
We need players with endurance who can apply pressure, the kid just needs to be played instead of being taken in and out of the team.
 
True. I remember when sos was air pumping regarding stocker trade and it’s the old question, is it the player or the development?

Development, has been an ongoing issue for many years, Dow + LOB would be different players at another club.

Stocker one is a weird one, you would think we would of seen more of him by now.

He isnt getting a go and neither are a few others - simple as that. Teague preferred to play with one KPF and Levi on one leg - which made him worse than useless - whilst not giving Kennedy a go - just another example.

teh football Club showed a stupid video of Stocker sort of wrestling with Ed ina. trining drill -all it showed was Ed having Stockjer on his back - not disposing of the ball and and Stocker ending up on teh ground with Ed giving him a cop that look - bizarro stuff ..

It is the one huge criticism I have of Teague and his MC - bizarre selections and playing players out of position who cactually then fail and are part of the reason(s) we lost - especially Collingwood.

Playing Levi was an awful idea, 2/10 match committee right there, he was cooked in the Richmond game..

Sure Omac isn't ideal, but he does far more than Levi at the moment.

If they play Levi again they really are idiots and have no clue.

Ed and Setterfield on the wing. :drunk:

Quality coaching right there.


We'll see as long as that's FOUR quarters of effort and bounce-back, not 3 quarters and then fade away.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Teh stats alluded to in the article repeat what I have been saying pretty much for a year - Carlton doesn't tackle. Part of that may well be too much spread - but mor of that is what the coaching team have ignored and that is focussing between the arcs on playing much closer to your direct opponent.

Teague probably gets an A- for attack and an F for defensive focus - if it isn't Teague- then it is his player selection. He cant be picking players soley because they are better eat executing attack - when the same players cost games because they are lousy at defense. That is just dumb football. Player lack of awareness or inability to stay with direct opponent and lay tackles when they have to be made - is teh difference between a win or a loss against most sides. every side is good enough to kick a score if you allow their midfield to dominate with ball in hand.

tldr? teague needs to pick more tacklers and if that means a slower attacking capability - so be it.
I'm not sure we have the cattle to pull off Teague's game plan, though mentality would appear to be an issue as well.

Since he wants to spread the field so much it's quite an attacking game plan that requires a team full of strong endurance runners and relatively quick, agile players IMO. I wouldn't say it's that different to some of the top teams right now like Port and Richmond, but we're not pulling it off.

A midfield that includes Cripps/Dow/Setterfield IMO is just too slow and lacking agility, which leads to a lack of defensive pressure and spread. Not a lot of running power there compared to some other AFL teams and they get exposed in quick games where there's so much space. Some lesser lights who are quick/agile were good against us like Bolton and Daicos...we couldn't lay a hand on them.

The forward line is not without blame. Casboult has clearly been impacted by injury, so right now he's not providing much offensively or defensively. Harry is quick and agile but doesn't use it defensively that much...he kicked 4 goals on Moore but Moore won a lot of contests that led to quick rebound as well. Murphy's defensive pressure is very poor.

So I think some of our players don't suit the game plan, but having said that it's amazing what a difference a better defensive attitude and a 'hunt them' mentality could make.

The correlation between our poor pressure numbers and Teague's gameplan is the major reason

While you could debate, technique of tackles and corralling, the real contributor is gameplan, structure and positioning

Our attack has predominantly 1 gear and when we do turn it over, like any side, we are too wide/open to be able to have even numbers at that contest and or defensively.

While it's great having more forwards when players look up, this also contributes to the lack of numbers between the arcs. We have gone from being outnumbered in our forwadline under Bolton, to having too many players forward of the edge of stoppages

The adjustment is minimal, but the positive flow on effect is huge
 
Definitely player development! Has been so for years. Players come to us to deteriorate!

Please God don't let this happen to Walsh :screamcat:
Walsh wont go backwards imo simply because its clear he has the drive the will and the want to be the best he can be .
For himself and his team trouble is im not sure there is too many at Carlton that have that same drive .
 
Interesting points about the academies, but I feel you might be overstating the benefits in a few of those points. All of the kids who play in the championships, TAC cup, school footy have a lot of time and resources pumped in to them, they train and play most of the year.

That being said, I’m surprised that the Swans and other clubs academies aren’t included in the soft cap, I actually support the use of academies but I would have thought if it’s exempt from the soft cap, it would go against the whole reason it was brought in.

Lastly, how dumb are the other 17 clubs recruiters? How is Gulden going in the 30s?
I think most clubs knew the bid would be matched and didn't bother doing their due diligence in terms of research. As a result, they didn't want to bid and potentially get stuck with a wasted pick. Crappy strategy but there were soft cap cuts and no games to judge.
Bid and make them pay if you are sure that's the player you want. I guess most teams weren't sure in the circumstances. We didn't bid because we didn't have a pick available until after he was gone so make it 16 other clubs.
 
Teh stats alluded to in the article repeat what I have been saying pretty much for a year - Carlton doesn't tackle. Part of that may well be too much spread - but mor of that is what the coaching team have ignored and that is focussing between the arcs on playing much closer to your direct opponent.

Teague probably gets an A- for attack and an F for defensive focus - if it isn't Teague- then it is his player selection. He cant be picking players soley because they are better eat executing attack - when the same players cost games because they are lousy at defense. That is just dumb football. Player lack of awareness or inability to stay with direct opponent and lay tackles when they have to be made - is teh difference between a win or a loss against most sides. every side is good enough to kick a score if you allow their midfield to dominate with ball in hand.

tldr? teague needs to pick more tacklers and if that means a slower attacking capability - so be it.
Preach! [emoji110]
 
If we’re talking about about a full overhaul of the defensive structure, it would be very hard to change and implement mid-season.
Small tweaks, absolutely.
For us I feel it’s a combination of effort and system.
Our guys need a rocket to prioritise two way running, but to my eye it is systematic that the team are intentionally corralling rather than chasing. I don’t want to be a broken record about this, but I’m certain our opponents are planning for this defensive approach. They’re taking their time, knowing full well that our guys won’t come at them, will sit off and stall them. Opponents are licking their lips, waiting for the receiver to get free and we are killed on the burst.
When we see Saad and Fogarty chase down and tackle it is frankly shocking, as our guys don’t do it.
I’m no expert, but I doubt this is a choice from the players. Their instinct would be to tackle the man with the ball, but we are trying to outsmart the game by - to use a basketball term - “playing the passing lanes” rather than attacking the man with possession.
Much smarter footy brains will articulate it better than me, but if we want to do a 180 on this system it won’t be implemented in 2 weeks.
JSOS does.....but I get your point
 
Yeah can't fault that - I probably got it the wrong way around - more likely to get a game in a better side that can cover for him and allow his good side to shine. It's probably the lesser and more middle-of-the-road teams like us that can't really afford to carry a player like that.

However, with those successful clubs, I think the selection would be based on genuine value-added, not because there was some promise to get him to 300 (acknowledging that we don't actually know that's 100% true.)
Seriously ? Of course the
Preach! [emoji110]
does teh mean “the”?
Just ****ing write “the”
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cripps isn't the one who needs to have his drive and desperation called into question. Was almost a lone hand on that front for years, and if he's starting to burn out a bit it's because others haven't found anywhere near the same motivation.
Has anyone got the Mick McGuane article from the HS this am?
 
Seems a little muddled to me - Saad needs to be more mindful of his opponent, but Weitering should be less conscious of his...?

I reckon there's some genuine hard truth in there, though. Willo was poor, Curnow isn't playing a suitable role, Murph isn't providing enough. Wonder if our match reviews are as brutally honest as some of Mick's comments, or if we're being a bit too conscious of hurting a player's feelings.

If there is truth in the talk of a possible debut for Parks, I could see him coming in for Willo. Bonus points if it results in SPS being pushed up the ground and plays as the seventh defender.

Carroll for Murph makes a mountain of sense. If we're "nursing" Murph to 300 then we can do so by giving him the occasional rest as the season goes. Just can't see us making that kind of statement....yet.

OUT: Martin (inj), Fisher (inj), Willo (omit)
IN: JSOS, Betts, Parks

Doc, Jones, Plowman
Saad, Weitering, Parks
Walsh, Cripps, Newnes
Pittonet, Curnow, Williams
Murphy, McKay, Fogarty
Betts, Casboult, JSOS
I/C: Dow, SPS, Gibbons, Setterfield
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top