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

[Laphroaig]

If he does, i don't agree with it, the sport is so professional now, that if you are carrying an injury you get found out. It maybe okay mid season when most players will have niggles and pain but at the start of a season when most players are at 100%, you get found out.
Even more so in finals when the tempo picks up, injured players stand out like a sore thumb.

Have a look at the impact Dusty had in the finals last year, champion player made to look ordinary due to injury. Just my opinion

Fair enough in an idealistic sense.

In reality it's likely to be more pragmatic.

A. Kreuzer is not 100%. His value to the team at this level of fitness is (X)
B. Do the alternative players fully fit have a value of less than or more than (X) Yes/no
C. Is there any known risk to further injury by Kreuzer playing? Yes/no

Pretty sure that is what Richmond went through deciding to play Martin. Is our fall back option if we don't play him going to be better than "ordinary".

 

[TooBlue14]

Can you provide a source for your "facts"?

I ask because Murphster's source shows the complete opposite. Murphster says lets look at the stats for 2019, which is fair enough. But the stats for the past so much as can be accessed are dead against it and for an obvious reason (you don't win games if you don't have the ball).

All off the afl site I tabulated all 2018 games and checked the 2017 ones. On a previous page in uploaded a spreadsheet. Check it out. It’s on this forum.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Agree re Gov, disagree re MK. Think the triple 6 rule will make hit-outs to advantage more important than in recent years. Think Lobbe will a better option in the ruck.

Hitouts to advantage look good but the truth is you might see a Phillips type having 30% of their hitouts to advantage while Kreuzer for arguments sake might be 25%.

The question is whether that 5% makes more of a difference compared to having Kreuzer effectively as an extra midfielder, considering 70% of those hitouts aren't to advantage and you still have to negate the opposing ruck's hitouts and turn more of those advantage hits into neutral situations.

I know which one I'd prefer.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Not really. lol

De Goey. Capable midfielder. Used up forward because the other Collingwood mids are less damaging in the forward line.
Kennedy. Capable midfielder. If Cripps, Setterfield, SPS, Walsh, Dow etc. come on, could easily be used up forward.

I'm not saying he matches De Goey for burst pace. But he has history of playing up forward and kicking goals, and could be asked to do the same for us in years to come if we've nailed our other mids.

 

[SurreyBlue]

De Goey. Capable midfielder. Used up forward because the other Collingwood mids are less damaging in the forward line.
Kennedy. Capable midfielder. If Cripps, Setterfield, SPS, Walsh, Dow etc. come on, could easily be used up forward.

I'm not saying he matches De Goey for burst pace. But he has history of playing up forward and kicking goals, and could be asked to do the same for us in years to come if we've nailed our other mids.

I think this will be a strength of ours long term. We don't just have Kennedy as a big unit who can play midfield/forward but add Cripps, Settlefield, Jack as well. All can take good overhead marks! I think these 4 alone will cause multiple headaches to opposition coaches and setups.

 

[Windhover]

All off the afl site I tabulated all 2018 games and checked the 2017 ones. On a previous page in uploaded a spreadsheet. Check it out. It’s on this forum.

Which thread and approximately when?

 

[huddler]

I thought we were crying out for some genuine defensive pressure in the forward line last season. Opposition defenders were waltzing out of their backline and picking their kicks. Seemed like a way we could improve dramatically, and take pressure off our own defensive group. Fast forward to now, and the only 'small' forward we recruited was Fasolo who was basically renowned for his lack of defensive effort at Collingwood. Another major injury to Pickett and we're down to the bare bones. Lebois is apparently well off the pace, although I was unaware of his own injury issues until recently.

Basically, I think this means Polson or Garlett really needs to emerge as a tough tackling small forward this year. Neither of them are very polished, and i'm not confident, but who knows one might spring up. I think it would improve us dramatically if they did. Maybe Cuningham is another possibility. We need a little heat-seeking missile in there with a taste for blood, like Ballantyne in his prime.

Manic pressure changes everything. Like most people here, I quite like our list, but I now want to see surprises in the W column. I want us to start hunting teams now. Surprising them. It's everyones responsibility. If we can rattle teams with pressure, I honestly think we have the match-winners to do the rest. Time to start ruffling a few feathers around the comp. Go Blues.

 

[TooBlue14]

A 5 minute look at our last game. Where we were comprehensively smashed in defensive running.
View attachment 612433

This is proof (one example of) the amount of defensive running we lack. We are very good when we have the ball, which isn't as often as i'd like anyway. But when we don't, we don't chase. Our average speeds are down. Very indicative of our age demographic. Players that are inexperienced find it very difficult to run both ways.

R1 v Richmond (we won attack work rate, they won defence - Kennedy best in attack, McIntosh best in defence (all Richmond top 5))
R2 v GC (We won attack, GC won defence - Garlett best attacker, Fiorini best defender (all GC))
R2 v Collingwood (Attack Carlton by **** all, Defence Coll by **** all - Garlett attacker, Murphy defender) NOTE: i was live at this game and we got off to a flyer, reeled in by about 12 goals Collingwood kicked without missing, we were closer than the score reflected 11 goals 10 to 16 goals 4)
R3 v North Melbourne (We won attack they won defence by a lot - Dow was huge in attack, Clarke wins defence (All north top 5))
R4 v West Coast (we won attack, they won defence - Garlett best attacker, Cole/hutchings best defenders (All WC))
R5 v Western Bulldogs (We won attack, they won defence - Dow huge in attack again, Richards best defender (all WB))

Should I go on.....

I think its starting to paint a fair picture of carlton. Our average speed when we have the ball is 1-2 km/h better than our opposition but the other way its all the opposition players. we have in most games the fastest players with speed when in attack while the opposition has the fastest players when defending. by a long way. Do our players just down hill ski when we have the ball and then use up all their energy without having enough in the tank to come back. I think so. Lets look at the GF as an example of how other teams look

West Coast
Average speed in attack - 8.1
Average speed in defence - 8.1

Collinwood
Average speed in attack - 8.3
Average speed in defence - 8.1

Work rate
Attack
Venable (WC) - 10
Sidebottom (Coll) - 9.7
Cripps (WC) - 9.5
Phillips (Coll) - 9.4
Hutchings (WC) - 9.3

Notice the even spread - not one whole team dominating attack speeds like Carlton do.

Defence
Hutchings (WC) - 9.5
Masten (WC) - 9.5
Redden (WC) - 9.2
Duggan (WC) - 9.1
Aish (Coll) - 8.9

Not a great example of a shared load of both teams working hard defensively but this is probably the indicator of why West coast won on GF day. The scoreline suggests it was close but the entire second half was won by west coast due to their team defensive running ability.

I hope this clears things up.

I think our improvement this year can come by being more composed and less "Headless chook" when running offensively. Conserve and be smart while using up that extra energy to get us up into the 8-8.5 km/h average speeds defensively that the top teams seem to be able to maintain.

View attachment 612434
If we can flip this table attack>defence then we are going to win more games. The winning teams more often than not had much higher average speeds in defence than attack when they played us. In our two wins we had a better average speed in defence than attack in 2018.

in 5/6 wins in 2017 we had better average speeds in defence than attack. In the other win we tied.

Which thread and approximately when?

Check attachments

 

[Opine]

Hitouts to advantage look good but the truth is you might see a Phillips type having 30% of their hitouts to advantage while Kreuzer for arguments sake might be 25%.

The question is whether that 5% makes more of a difference compared to having Kreuzer effectively as an extra midfielder, considering 70% of those hitouts aren't to advantage and you still have to negate the opposing ruck's hitouts and turn more of those advantage hits into neutral situations.

I know which one I'd prefer.

I guess it turns to whether adopting a negating strategy at centre square, or whether choosing to use CS bounce to launch attacking play. The more often a hitout falls to even the slightest advantage of a Cripps or, hopefully, a Setterfield, the more likely it will be to result in a clearance to an outside mid. We're now better stocked in terms of inside and outside mids. I think the importance of hitout to advantage might re-emerge with the new rules.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Fair enough in an idealistic sense.

In reality it's likely to be more pragmatic.

A. Kreuzer is not 100%. His value to the team at this level of fitness is (X)
B. Do the alternative players fully fit have a value of less than or more than (X) Yes/no
C. Is there any known risk to further injury by Kreuzer playing? Yes/no

Pretty sure that is what Richmond went through deciding to play Martin. Is our fall back option if we don't play him going to be better than "ordinary".

I understand your point of view, but last year, round 1, Kreuze was firing, then got injured, went off, came back on and struggled with the rest of the game and then for weeks after. He went from making two Premiership ruckman look like hacks and totally destroyed Grigg and the Richmond setup when he was in the ruck, when injured, they took the upper hand.

I just feel, if you have a fit players, especially in round 1 you play them, I can understand rolling the dice to make the finals or in finals but not round 1

 

[murphster]

Say that again.

What worries me is he might have to.

 

[murphster]

Great thinking, and you can't get more experienced than ole Mick eh? Exactly what we need. The only drawback was his late career when he ran a side into an abyss of gigantic proportions. Now which club was that again?

He could Unrebuild our list in no time at all. It’s alwsys faster the second time around.

 

[murphster]

People keep saying that we will get Ross Lyon to replace Bolton. That would be just as bad. Unbelievable

Please never repeat that again I will shoot myself in the head.

 

[murphster]

Your interpretation makes no sense.

Defensive running isn't running done by defenders. It's running defensively.

Consider it from an ease of collection perspective. Who is a "defender" at any given time? Just the back 6 on the team sheet? Doubtful - those players could be moved forward during the game. Just the players in the defensive 50 at any given time? Doubtful, there are times nobody is in the defensive 50, but that doesn't equate to not having any defenders. Everyone "behind the play"? Doubtful, a midfielder jogging back to the middle while his teammate is kicking for goal isn't engaging in "defensive running". The simple, logical, measurable interpretation is distance covered while in possession vs distance covered when not in possession.

You can stubbornly stick by your "you have no source" line, but at the end of the day you're just doggedly holding onto an illogical assumption of your own, and criticising others for holding a more logical one.

If you want "proof" one way or the other - go find it. Looks like you're the only one on your side of the fence anyway, so absent proof I'm thinking consensus interpretation is more likely than the lone hand playing devil's advocate.

That’s sauce he wants not source.

 

[murphster]

A 5 minute look at our last game. Where we were comprehensively smashed in defensive running.
View attachment 612433

This is proof (one example of) the amount of defensive running we lack. We are very good when we have the ball, which isn't as often as i'd like anyway. But when we don't, we don't chase. Our average speeds are down. Very indicative of our age demographic. Players that are inexperienced find it very difficult to run both ways.

R1 v Richmond (we won attack work rate, they won defence - Kennedy best in attack, McIntosh best in defence (all Richmond top 5))
R2 v GC (We won attack, GC won defence - Garlett best attacker, Fiorini best defender (all GC))
R2 v Collingwood (Attack Carlton by **** all, Defence Coll by **** all - Garlett attacker, Murphy defender) NOTE: i was live at this game and we got off to a flyer, reeled in by about 12 goals Collingwood kicked without missing, we were closer than the score reflected 11 goals 10 to 16 goals 4)
R3 v North Melbourne (We won attack they won defence by a lot - Dow was huge in attack, Clarke wins defence (All north top 5))
R4 v West Coast (we won attack, they won defence - Garlett best attacker, Cole/hutchings best defenders (All WC))
R5 v Western Bulldogs (We won attack, they won defence - Dow huge in attack again, Richards best defender (all WB))

Should I go on.....

I think its starting to paint a fair picture of carlton. Our average speed when we have the ball is 1-2 km/h better than our opposition but the other way its all the opposition players. we have in most games the fastest players with speed when in attack while the opposition has the fastest players when defending. by a long way. Do our players just down hill ski when we have the ball and then use up all their energy without having enough in the tank to come back. I think so. Lets look at the GF as an example of how other teams look

West Coast
Average speed in attack - 8.1
Average speed in defence - 8.1

Collinwood
Average speed in attack - 8.3
Average speed in defence - 8.1

Work rate
Attack
Venable (WC) - 10
Sidebottom (Coll) - 9.7
Cripps (WC) - 9.5
Phillips (Coll) - 9.4
Hutchings (WC) - 9.3

Notice the even spread - not one whole team dominating attack speeds like Carlton do.

Defence
Hutchings (WC) - 9.5
Masten (WC) - 9.5
Redden (WC) - 9.2
Duggan (WC) - 9.1
Aish (Coll) - 8.9

Not a great example of a shared load of both teams working hard defensively but this is probably the indicator of why West coast won on GF day. The scoreline suggests it was close but the entire second half was won by west coast due to their team defensive running ability.

I hope this clears things up.

You are the man, I don’t know where you got the footage but I could kiss you for it. Clearly and concisely shows my point. You are now my favourite poster on bf.

 

[murphster]

I think our improvement this year can come by being more composed and less "Headless chook" when running offensively. Conserve and be smart while using up that extra energy to get us up into the 8-8.5 km/h average speeds defensively that the top teams seem to be able to maintain.

View attachment 612434
If we can flip this table attack>defence then we are going to win more games. The winning teams more often than not had much higher average speeds in defence than attack when they played us. In our two wins we had a better average speed in defence than attack in 2018.

in 5/6 wins in 2017 we had better average speeds in defence than attack. In the other win we tied.

Where were you yesterday when I needed you, you have totally vindicated my argument and for that I thank you greatly as I could not find the data to prove my argument that I knew to be true. Thank you again

 

[murphster]

Every time we won in 2017 and 18 we run defensively harder than we did offensively. In most games the team that wins the defensive running but loses the offensive running wins. It’s a fact. You’re on to something.

Thank you thank you thank you at last someone that gets it.

 

[murphster]

None. You’re making loose connections from defensive speed to turn overs and that is not the way to go. I agree I don’t want to be turning it over. But I want when we don’t have the footy to run harder if not the same as when we have it. Arguably we shouldn’t need to run offensively as much if we run hard decisively as we will cause turn overs and have success as our players will be unmarked offensively abc not requiring to run as hard. I’m suggesting when we run defensively harder than when we run offensively we have been more successful as have 90%+ of other teams. Maybe it’s correlated more with the new age game style of causing turnovers to score. It’s a statical fact that the team winning has a higher defensive speed than the opposition and lower offensive speed. This matches perfectly with not needing to run as hard offensively as turnovers create loose players in the clear. It’s aconnection with the current game style and it’s how you win.

I’m Not suggesting we run less offensively. I’m suggesting we run harder defensively. Crest turn over and we will save outselves offensively.

Exactly what I have been saying I just don’t have the elequence to explain it as well as yourself or the access to the data to back it up, but you have proven my point both statistically and in footy parlance. Well done.

 

[murphster]

I’m talking about average speed. Not duration which is what the stat shows.

Give it up TooBlue I’ve been trying for 2 days it’s a waste of time.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

murphster multiquote is your friend

 

[murphster]

Which is okay. If a team has one opportunity to run defensively they get recorded for their speed. If they do it 100 times because they are constantly chasing this gets recorded. I don’t care about the context of the game and what statement you are pulling out to justify why defensive effort isn’t important in winning games. It’s a stat that is recorded every time a team doesn’t have the ball. It is shown that in 90% of games the team that scored higher for their average speed across the team wins. It’s a fact. Carlton won its last 7 games having a faster average speed than the opposition on defensive running. That’s a fact. It goes to show that if you can bring the intensity to your defensive action as a priority than your offensive one you win. Simple. Look I’m clearly not going to get through to you. You’re not gonna explain the data away with we’re constantly turning it over because it’s not just Carlton. It’s neatly every losing side. They don’t match it on defensive intensity (speed chasing their opponent). Yes they’re likely getting tired because they are doing it more often so can’t maintain high speeds. But that just proves my point we need to get better at defensive intensity and bring speed to all our chases. It’s what win premierships. Since the data has been recorded the team that can maintain the higher average defensive speed across their team wins. Simple. You can’t dispute that. You can explain away with theories. But it doesn’t matter. Defend faster. Simple.

You cannot explain it any better than that, if people can’t grasp the fact that the team that is willing to work harder and faster defensively is more likely to win the game more than 90% of the time they never will. Whether it is a statistical fact or not they will still argue cause they don’t get it. Even though it is above 90% of the time they win.

 

[murphster]

Can you provide a source for your "facts"?

I ask because Murphster's source shows the complete opposite. Murphster says lets look at the stats for 2019, which is fair enough. But the stats for the past so much as can be accessed are dead against it and for an obvious reason

Can you provide a source for your "facts"?

I ask because Murphster's source shows the complete opposite. Murphster says lets look at the stats for 2019, which is fair enough. But the stats for the past so much as can be accessed are dead against it and for an obvious reason (you don't win games if you don't have the ball).

sorry to be the bearer of bad news but his source is the same as mine and proves exactly the same thing, that the team that runs harder and faster defensively during a game will win the game more than 90% of the time. And actually it’s you don’t win games if you don’t get the ball back.

 

[Arr0w]

Here is a thought, while it is great to have all these "fix" stats, such as higher average speed when defensively running, perhaps prevention in reducing our turnovers would be more appropriate, as well as more effective

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

De Goey. Capable midfielder. Used up forward because the other Collingwood mids are less damaging in the forward line.

Hilarious way to describe the most explosive/talented medium forward in the game.

 

[therubbernub]

You cannot explain it any better than that, if people can’t grasp the fact that the team that is willing to work harder and faster defensively is more likely to win the game more than 90% of the time they never will. Whether it is a statistical fact or not they will still argue cause they don’t get it. Even though it is above 90% of the time they win.

i believe.