When will the Carlton FC Arrive?

[Chief]

Part 2 of this thread is here:

When will the Carlton FC Arrive? Part 2

PART 1 of this thread is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/when-will-the-carlton-fc-arrive.1259822/ ============= We're all thinking it. We're watching this story play out for the 4th time in the last 20 years and it's the same story every time. They have a great list of exciting...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[SurreyBlue]

Shiel is average even when fully fit.

2 x 1st round picks and around $800k a year....

x2

 

[freddy mercury]

Shiel is average even when fully fit.

2 x 1st round picks and around $800k a year....

But then you look at McGovern, Williams and jack Martin's contracts, it looks a bargain.

Not sure of the impact those two picks had for Essendon but they've seen to nail the last ones in they had.

One of the picks they traded gws drafted Caldwell who now plays at Essendon and they got him extremely cheap. So obviously GWS rated him enough to use a first round pick on him, but traded him a few years later significantly cheaper. So who won the deal? Effectively Essendon traded one first round pick for shiel and Caldwell.

 

[boncer34]

Shiel is average even when fully fit.

2 x 1st round picks and around $800k a year....

2 firsts for a player and a 2nd is almost the same as a 1 first, 3 seconds, a 3rd and 2 fourths for a player, a 2nd and a 4th.

Probably a little less though.

 

[citizen-erased]

none of young talent been developed

by and large, that's where it's hurting.

Dow, O'Brien, Fisher, Setterfield, Kennedy, SPS, Stocker. All first round kids.
Philp and Kemp haven't hit the park yet either.
Ideally half of them would be providing decent support to Walsh.

Development is so critical. It's cost us a lot over the years and it's one of the big ticks i'm giving Truck so far.

 

[citizen-erased]

Shiel is average even when fully fit.

2 x 1st round picks and around $800k a year....

i don't think he's on 800 a year. I recall at the time he signed for less than Carlton's offer, and i can't imagine they had 850+ on the table.

The 2x 1st rounders was too much, but Dan Richardson came over the top of Dodoro and his holding out.
We should have walked away and gone via FA the following year.

That said, we missed Caldwell (who we now have, but again i think we overpaid for) & Bergman (who looks alright i must admit), and gained a 2nd back which it would appear we've blown on Mosquito.

Not our finest trade/draft i'll admit, and the cautionary tale of going for the cherry before the cake is baked.
I see a lot of what we did there in Carlton's pursuit of Saad & Williams last year

 

[LordLucifer]

Blues fans can't be critical of Essendon for securing Shiel here, it's downright hypocritical because we went "all in" on him and missed out.

Mind you, I'm glad he chose the Bombers because he hasn't been the player we would have hoped for.

 

[Noidnadroj]

And in our past few years how many have we brought in? Newnes was probably the last in 2019, but it looks like the point is going over your head.

You can’t put accomodate a developing list without enough mid-tier payees on in. You don’t pay rookies 300k, and you don’t pay your best players 1.5 mil pa.

Carlton had to find some guys who were at the next stage of their careers, where their contracts wouldn’t be huge but they were due for a pay rise and/or were already on more than than their performance would dictate. That’s why Lamb/Smedts/Phillips were added to the list.

Suggest you go back and have a look at the sides we were rolling out in 2018, they were some very young teams.

Young? You mean like Round 1 of 2016, with Richmond backing up from 3 consecutive finals campaigns and the Blues in what should have been full blown rebuild : Richmond’s average age 24y 5m, Carlton’s 25y 7m.

Or Round 1 2018, the year after Tigers won the flag and were clearly the best team in the competition and Blues were in full rebuild. Richmond’s average age 25y 0m, Carlton’s 24y 7m.

Or Round 6, 2018. Played the Dogs who’d won a flag 18-months prior… Dogs age 23y 0m, Carlton’s 24y 6m.

Round 9, 2018. Played the Demons who made a prelim that year. Demons age 24y 10m, Carlton’s 24y 10m.

So Carlton were not rolling out ‘very young teams’ at all, and never have. And therein lies the problem. They’re now back to average age of 25-26yo+ each week. In Round 6 of this season they were 26yo 4m versus Brisbane’s 26y 1m.

Unfortunately they never quite ripped the bandaid off and went all chips in on their rebuild.

When Hardwick came in, in his second year which was Round 1 of 2011, Richmond’s average age in round 1 was 22y 6m.

During 2016 Carlton played Demons in round 22 and age was 25y 6m versus 23y 0m.

In Round 21 2019, a few weeks before Tigers won the flag. Carlton’s age 25y 4m v 25y 2m.

It may exist, from after 2014 I cannot find a single example of Carlton fielding a team with an average age less than 24yo. This shows they never fully committed to a genuine rebuild, perhaps thinking they had enough quality around the edges to avoid it. Time will tell, but I think their mis-reading of their list profile may result in them ‘starting again’ in a few years time.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Vikingnz]

Average age can be a bit of a misleading statistic though, particularly with outliers like Betts for example - I find it more informative to look at how many players they are putting out below X age or X games played.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Oh, OK- so you are wrong and don't have an answer?

Good that is cleared up.

In 2009 Richmond cleaned out their list and took 16 kids in the draft, PSD or rookie draft.

In Carlton’s first year of rebuild in 2015 they took 7.

From 2009-2014 Richmond took 27 rookies. From 2015-2020 Carlton took 11. It was 31 national draft picks versus 25.

So 58 draft and rookie picks versus 36.

You are much better off filling your list with untried youngsters where a small number develop into guns, compared to established duds where none ever become guns, and too many end up hanging around on your list for 3-4 seasons…. Sort of good enough to warrant a list spot, but not good enough to ever actually take you anywhere and clogs your list, costing you the chance of uncovering some gems.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ambrosia]

Young? You mean like Round 1 of 2016, with Richmond backing up from 3 consecutive finals campaigns and the Blues in what should have been full blown rebuild : Richmond’s average age 24y 5m, Carlton’s 25y 7m.

Or Round 1 2018, the year after Tigers won the flag and were clearly the best team in the competition and Blues were in full rebuild. Richmond’s average age 25y 0m, Carlton’s 24y 7m.

Or Round 6, 2018. Played the Dogs who’d won a flag 18-months prior… Dogs age 23y 0m, Carlton’s 24y 6m.

Round 9, 2018. Played the Demons who made a prelim that year. Demons age 24y 10m, Carlton’s 24y 10m.

So Carlton were not rolling out ‘very young teams’ at all, and never have. And therein lies the problem. They’re now back to average age of 25-26yo+ each week. In Round 6 of this season they were 26yo 4m versus Brisbane’s 26y 1m.

Unfortunately they never quite ripped the bandaid off and went all chips in on their rebuild.

When Hardwick came in, in his second year which was Round 1 of 2011, Richmond’s average age in round 1 was 22y 6m.

During 2016 Carlton played Demons in round 22 and age was 25y 6m versus 23y 0m.

In Round 21 2019, a few weeks before Tigers won the flag. Carlton’s age 25y 4m v 25y 2m.

It may exist, from after 2014 I cannot find a single example of Carlton fielding a team with an average age less than 24yo. This shows they never fully committed to a genuine rebuild, perhaps thinking they had enough quality around the edges to avoid it. Time will tell, but I think their mis-reading of their list profile may result in them ‘starting again’ in a few years time.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It’s a fallacy to suggest Hardwick’s youth policy at the beginning of his coaching tenure had much to do with Richmond’s flag in 2017. All of Richmond’s best players from that period on their list are first rounders or recycled players.

Both approaches show there is no quick fix to turning around a list after stuffing up drafting and recruiting for an extended period.

Richmond turned things around because they started nailing draft picks and trades that meshed with their game plan.

 

[Joao]

Average age can be a bit of a misleading statistic though, particularly with outliers like Betts for example - I find it more informative to look at how many players they are putting out below X age or X games played.

You also have to take into account what each age range is producing.

 

[Ambrosia]

In 2009 Richmond cleaned out their list and took 16 kids in the draft, PSD or rookie draft.

13 kids. 5 rookie draft picks none of which made it.

The only success from that draft outside the first two rounds in which you took 10 players was Dylan Grimes and you’re recommending this strategy as the right way to rebuild?

Carlton would have been much better drafting and playing guys like Ben Nason and Relton Roberts like Richmond then theyd be well on their way to a flag.

 

[AndrewShawble]

Playing amazing football and being 11th or playing shocking football and being 14th.

It’s much of the same really.

It’s not the same though. We went to Carlton to play finals while Essendon rebuild, Essendon looking more likely of the two clubs to be playing finals in the next few years.

 

[Noidnadroj]

13 kids. 5 rookie draft picks none of which made it.

The only success from that draft outside the first two rounds in which you took 10 players was Dylan Grimes and you’re recommending this strategy as the right way to rebuild?

Carlton would have been much better drafting and playing guys like Ben Nason and Relton Roberts like Richmond then theyd be well on their way to a flag.

No, but if you’d had a strategy to embrace the various drafts and late national draft picks you’d unearth some talented senior players instead of clog your list for years and years with C-graders you cannot get rid of. You get youngsters who are no good and they’re gone 1-2 years later and you try again. You get recycled players and they linger like a turd on your shoe.

On a quick analysis pick-50 and beyond in the National draft you’re about a 15% chance of getting a top quality player. (This does not include drafting your own rookies). For the rookie draft you’re about a 10% chance. So over the last decade if Carlton had replaced 20 recycled duds with picks from various drafts they’d probably have 2-3 more top quality players in their prime.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[doppleganger]

What alternative option was there? What could/should Carlton have done differently. With specifics.

The best answer to that I've seen is Brandon Ellis as a free agent in 2018... which is pretty weak really

Actually put some value on character, leadership and willingness to compete and view those as important "talents" that a successful player requires.

Did any of the "list cloggers" actually drive standards on the track, set an example re professionalism etc.

It isn't surprising that early draft picks appear to be floundering, as Carlton didn't place any value on surrounding them with solid AFL citizens....SPS, Dow, O'Brien, Setterfield these guys have been dudded.

 

[The 747]

But then you look at McGovern, Williams and jack Martin's contracts, it looks a bargain.

Not sure of the impact those two picks had for Essendon but they've seen to nail the last ones in they had.

One of the picks they traded gws drafted Caldwell who now plays at Essendon and they got him extremely cheap. So obviously GWS rated him enough to use a first round pick on him, but traded him a few years later significantly cheaper. So who won the deal? Effectively Essendon traded one first round pick for shiel and Caldwell.

Caldwell is being paid a lot and played all of two games for Essendon, averaging 16 touches as a midfielder. Went the early crow there, suggest it might be a raw prawn.

 

[freddy mercury]

Caldwell is being paid a lot and played all of two games for you, averaing 16 touches as a midfielder. Went the early crow there, suggest it might be a raw prawn.

I don't barrack for Essendon. Far too early to write him off.

 

[The 747]

I don't barrack for Essendon. Far too early to write him off.

Meh whatever team you support. If it is far too early to write him off it is also fair too early to call it a win no?

 

[freddy mercury]

Meh whatever team you support. If it is far too early to write him off it is also fair too early to call it a win no?

Not too sure. Caldwell and shiel for a first round pick is pretty good. Caldwell has played a handful of games but shown a little. I'd say that Essendon haven't done as bad as what people are making out

 

[Ambrosia]

Caldwell is being paid a lot and played all of two games for Essendon, averaging 16 touches as a midfielder. Went the early crow there, suggest it might be a raw prawn.

21 in his first game then subbed off injured halfway through his first. Definitely looked the part before then

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Um... wot?

How do you have a football review and not review the coach?

 

[chunkylover53]

Um... wot?

How do you have a football review and not review the coach?

i'm sure it is under review, but they're not going to come out mid-year and publicly put the coach under review whilst he is still in contract + half the season still to go. that's just putting further unwanted & unnecessary pressure on him.

some things are just better left unsaid. i'm not sure why people find this hard to comprehend.

 

[Soapy V]

Um... wot?

How do you have a football review and not review the coach?

The WHOLE Football department is being reviewed. I'm sure the Senior Coach is as well.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

It’s not the same though. We went to Carlton to play finals while Essendon rebuild, Essendon looking more likely of the two clubs to be playing finals in the next few years.

Debatable.

 

[Bjchan13]

Hard to know where they're at. They have star players on every line. B graders/role players (which you need) are all there. It all points to coaching and development. Or a disharmony amongst the playing group/culture issue. They seem divided. They were supposed to be on the up after the success of 2020 and the off season additions. An internal 3 year plan of 2021 finals, 2022 top 4, 2023 flag/extended dominant run in top 4, was reasonable considering the talent (Cripps, Weitering, Walsh, McKay, Curnow). But really, SOS and Bolton were only halfway through a job when they departed. The people that took over from 2020 have tried to cut corners and take shortcuts, effectively botching whatever the SOS/Bolton plan was, leaving the club in no mans land. Probably need to call SOS up and ask him what the plan for phase 2 was. Or get someone in (Ross Lyon, Paul Roos) to redesign the job. Teagues proven now that he was a bad choice as coach. The footage of opposition players streaming through the midfield unchecked is damning. He either doesn't tell the players the correct way to play, or he does tell them and they can't do it, or he does tell them and they wont do it. Whichever it is i cant see how he continues.