Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 3

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I cant recall teh thread or the poster from yesterday or the day before but quite a comprehensive list of what Carlton as a team is top4 in stats THIS YEAR and what it is not doing well at is- the stats as evidence of where the team sits versus opponents is fact Soap - not 'opinion'.

From memory contested ball #1, tackles top4, - if that isnt by in - I don't know what is.

Devil's advocate cause I can't be arsed keeping track of who believes what in this discussion:

Could we be #1 for contested ball, top 4 for for tackles etc. because we have a list and team each week that is geared towards those stats? Cripps and Hewett alone would have us in the top tier for both measures, and TDK playing for a monster contract would also be giving effort at the coalface.

If we accept that premise - that we have a list built for the contest - then ranking highly in those stats isn't a reflection of gameplan buy-in at all, it's just a correlation between list profile and expected output.
 
Devil's advocate cause I can't be arsed keeping track of who believes what in this discussion:

Could we be #1 for contested ball, top 4 for for tackles etc. because we have a list and team each week that is geared towards those stats? Cripps and Hewett alone would have us in the top tier for both measures, and TDK playing for a monster contract would also be giving effort at the coalface.

If we accept that premise - that we have a list built for the contest - then ranking highly in those stats isn't a reflection of gameplan buy-in at all, it's just a correlation between list profile and expected output.

That’s how I see but that’s my opinion not a fact
 
I cant recall teh thread or the poster from yesterday or the day before but quite a comprehensive list of what Carlton as a team is top4 in stats THIS YEAR and what it is not doing well at is- the stats as evidence of where the team sits versus opponents is fact Soap - not 'opinion'.

From memory contested ball #1, tackles top4, - if that isnt by in - I don't know what is.

I believe we currently do have buy in, and some numbers point to that others don't, such as pressure

You can still have buy in, while having conditional types and or acts, like all sides

There are also many assumptions when winning or losing.

Our numbers, are better than the win column suggests, ultimately it's still how a club is judged versus internal measures
 
Devil's advocate cause I can't be arsed keeping track of who believes what in this discussion:

Could we be #1 for contested ball, top 4 for for tackles etc. because we have a list and team each week that is geared towards those stats? Cripps and Hewett alone would have us in the top tier for both measures, and TDK playing for a monster contract would also be giving effort at the coalface.

If we accept that premise - that we have a list built for the contest - then ranking highly in those stats isn't a reflection of gameplan buy-in at all, it's just a correlation between list profile and expected output.
It's a good point, we can win tackles and contested ball stats because we have Cripps, Cez, Lord, Hewett, Fogarty playing each week who are inside midfielders. And we just drafted Ben just in case we want to win more contested ball.

And lets not forget we had Stocker, Kennedy and SPS all wanting to be inside mids.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Devil's advocate cause I can't be arsed keeping track of who believes what in this discussion:

Could we be #1 for contested ball, top 4 for for tackles etc. because we have a list and team each week that is geared towards those stats? Cripps and Hewett alone would have us in the top tier for both measures, and TDK playing for a monster contract would also be giving effort at the coalface.

If we accept that premise - that we have a list built for the contest - then ranking highly in those stats isn't a reflection of gameplan buy-in at all, it's just a correlation between list profile and expected output.
We are also top 5 for intercepts, top 5 for 1%ers, top 3 for inside 50's & top 2 for tackles inside 50 while having the 4th lowest points against in the league behind Collingwood, the Giants and Suns (who have played 1 game less)

So all up we are very good at winning the ball in contest, very good at winning the ball back from our opponent, very good at preventing scores & very good at getting the ball into a scoring position - while also being very good at "effort" things like tackling and 1%ers. That is a pretty decent all round game.

The things we are bad at are kicking goals (15th but 3rd for behinds), disposal efficiency (18th) and turnovers (equal first) - I think it would be very hard to execute any game plan when you are that bad at using the ball.
 
Last edited:
I believe we currently do have buy in, and some numbers point to that others don't, such as pressure

You can still have buy in, while having conditional types and or acts, like all sides

There are also many assumptions when winning or losing.

Our numbers, are better than the win column suggests, ultimately it's still how a club is judged versus internal measures
Given our tackle, inside 50 tackle, 1%er, intercepts, contested footy and scores against numbers - do you have a "pressure" number that shows we are bad or is it just a "vibe"
 
Given our tackle, inside 50 tackle, 1%er, intercepts, contested footy and scores against numbers - do you have a "pressure" number that shows we are bad or is it just a "vibe"

Numbers and vision

PA we are mid table, DHPA we are 16th, interestingly Suns and Dockers make up the bottom 2

Hard ball gets mid table, with vision it's showing that we aren't getting enough bodies to the contest

Loose ball gets we are 3rd, so we either have good numbers on the spread, missing open targets and recovering, or releasing too early
 
Devil's advocate cause I can't be arsed keeping track of who believes what in this discussion:

Could we be #1 for contested ball, top 4 for for tackles etc. because we have a list and team each week that is geared towards those stats? Cripps and Hewett alone would have us in the top tier for both measures, and TDK playing for a monster contract would also be giving effort at the coalface.

If we accept that premise - that we have a list built for the contest - then ranking highly in those stats isn't a reflection of gameplan buy-in at all, it's just a correlation between list profile and expected output.
It could also be the team/coach want to ensure said strengths are capitalised upon.

Teams that have amazing speed & outside capability will try to use that as their way forward, accentuate it in game plan & rank highly x for goals/transition etc…

It’s not just that we have players who are contested beasts, that ranks us defensively high, its also likely we’re trying to play to our strengths.

It would be nice to see some balance!
 
We are also top 5 for intercepts, top 5 for 1%ers, top 3 for inside 50's & top 2 for tackles inside 50 while having the 4th lowest points against in the league behind Collingwood, the Giants and Suns (who have played 1 game less)

So all up we are very good at winning the ball in contest, very good at winning the ball back from our opponent, very good at preventing scores & very good at getting the ball into a scoring position - while also being very good at "effort" things like tackling and 1%ers. That is a pretty decent all round game.

The things we are bad at are kicking goals (15th but 3rd for behinds), disposal efficiency (18th) and turnovers (equal first) - I think it would be very hard to execute any game plan when you are that bad at using the ball.

There are so many stats on offer you can cherry pick anything for high and low averages. I'd suggest two of those stats really mean the players are trying like mad to no avail.

It is the 'how' we get goals that is failing (in transition). And it is either we have shit players or a shit coach. Or a bit of A and a bit of B.
 
Team work IS execution, Putting body on line I gues is captured by winning contested ball and tackles ...


No I have been as critical of McGovern and Docherty as anyone else ( including you) and am sure if there were realistic alternatives available they would have been used...although perhaps McGovern has got the message judging by his improved efforts last week...as for Williams again no argument- but these individual 'performances' are nto evidence of the 'team' not buying in - surely?


Again - execution issues and decision issues - surely?


Execution and poor decision making - unfortunately from senior players as well- that isnt lack of buy in through is it?


Individual brain farts- nothing to do with team buy in - we didnt see this again....


Agreed and one of my biggest complaints - I put that down to a combination of poor transitional coaching and dumb players - this stagnant movement has bothered me for a long time and speaks to a lack of cohesion and drilled movement pattterns - almostas if Carlton has 3 different teams on the field- too kmuch makey-uppy going on - tat is a fair criticism of coaching and players.


Every team suffers this at one stage or another turnovers cost plenty - and that is Carltons achilles heel because poor execution happens too often - my #1 bugbear.


I agree that not all the team members are playing to an equal level of ability - that doesnt mean that they are mostly playing too ability - I think that is where I disagree with some POV regarding list status.

it seems to me that you (quite rightly) are not happy with certain player's performances - I dont disagree with your observations - but this speaks to my POV - which is that Carlton's list isnt as good as many would like to think. A coach can only reward or punish poor behaviour and punishment usually means dropping the player- all good - unless there are no other viable options.....which is where we are - hence my POV

I don't think there is a lot of difference in terms of what we don't like seeing - in fact there is more overlap than not - I know I've made the same comments re Motlop /McGovern examples as you have - the difference is that you believe that the coach could and should drop players for this or that lack of effort' - which agree with IF that type of behaviour is repeated and habitual ..and unfortunately for some senior players there are no like for like substitutes - a list issue - that isnt to excuse the player or the coach it is just a (to me ) an uncomfortable fact.
 
According to HS:

Management matter’ puts senior Carlton staffer on leave​

I dont havbe access (paywall). Anyone can elaborate?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Heard a whisper...

Said employee, henceforth known as "ITK" has been terminated due to concerns around leaks to media, particularly BigFooty.

No, not really.

Bluemour thread is this way:

 
New president thought sending “pics” was part of the job? Whom is this senior staff member? Coaching group? Head boot cleaner?

Hopefully it’s those who “attack” the crowd over the PA before the game and during the breaks.
Life bans with no parole !!
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Sorry - yes was in The Age - link kindly posted above

I think you missed that I bolded “AFL’s integrity unit” from your post. I am not sure it exists. :p
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 3


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top