The Sky is Falling

[WilliamPowell]

Credit where its due.
Ivan was sensational last year
This year, brought Carlton back in game in last quarter eg dropped marks, hitouts to opposition players  etc
We got belted against the Saints in centre clearnances and he struggled
Was ok/good against the Minson
I thought yesterday he tried and broke square against a hack.
Either he is injured or gone off the boil.

Said it before I believe big Ivan is playing sore

And I thought he was our best yesterday so to me that reflects how bad others were

[Hellenic Tiger]

Ramps
Yesterday proved a few things
We arent good enough -player wise
Thought the coaching was poor at times
Petterd spare man back was comical . As if by chance he got possesion, he isnt a run and carry and is a poor kick and decision maker 

As I mentioned Jack perhaps the genesis of our loss was spawned at selection and preparation for the game. Too many tv and radio interviews by coaches and players talking about fourth year at the club and Dimma going on TFS and the club trying to act positive and progressed off the field and neglecting to be progressed on it.
Dimma had an awful day in the box yesterday and if he had his time again some of the howlers he made during the week may not have caused the loss or a loss on that level yesterday.

Furthermore the club should learn from this and whether we get to a game like this later in the year or next year show some added maturity and get blokes like Benny Gale, Gary March and Barry Richardson's boy to field the media circus.

It is okay to be positive and embrace the hype but we clearly are not yet at the  level quality wise on our list bar a select half dozen or so to to be media savvy player wise to embrace the week we've had and respond appropriately as Dane Swan did for his 200th.

[the claw]

Lids is now crap, shoot Rance, drop Vickery, Martin has had it, Houli is no good, Grigg sux, get rid of Petterd, put McGuanne down back,   the coach was out coached......geezus after one loss. A reality check is all we had from a better side.

We will have a few more against Sydney, the Hawks, the Cats, the Dockers, Eagles and the Roos, win a couple of them and we are ok.

We should be more peeed off if we don't beat the Suns, GWS, Dees, Crows, Lions and Port!!

Next week will tell us more about our team, not today!

its funny in a way. but i have to say most of the players are criticised not because we win or lose but because they invariably make the same sort of mistakes win or lose.

and in a way i disagree. getting beat by sides like collingwood tells us more about where we are at than losses or wins against sides that are around us.

we all agree well 90% of us agree that we are a middling side atm.  that being 7th thru 12th or so.

 the logical thing is to go above that and go top 6 or top 4. to do that  we do need to improve in lots of areas including personel.

on those you mention
rance well  win or lose some  point out his weaknesses they dont magically disappear because we have a win., mcguane tries his guts out but the weaknesses never go away.
grigg and houli are soft and are average kicks under certain circumstances win or lose this has not changed. vickery continues to be poor not just because we lost the criticisms are the same even when we win.
i dont need to go on im sure you get the point.
 
if we want to go to the next level we have to get better and we have to find better personell as well. it really has nothing to do with winning or losing.
i said at the start of the yr we could win just 3 games but significantly improve in critical areas that still holds true.

atm yes 7th or 8th should rightly be the aim but it is not the be all end all. without a doubt the main focus has to be on finding more players and developing them properlyto take that next step.

we were a middling team last yr and we are a middling team this yr so what has really changed not a lot really the same flaws are there that were there last yr.

whats the point of having players who go alright when its on their terms but fail when it counts.
jackson houli mcguane king possibly grigg and edwards are all players id be looking to find better petterd   vickery as well and there are others in the gun  atm. but hey this has been stated constantly and regularly regardless of wins or losses.

i have to ask is the sky falling or are people doing what they always do and putting their heads in the sand.

[Rampstar]

heads are just going into the sandpit claw. we are middle of the road and our recruiting this year was aimed at cementing our middle of the road status.

[Hellenic Tiger]

As for Grigg and Petterd and others they can only take you up to a point and that point is 6-10 what we need to find, recruit and gather as well as develop is the players who will spread and have the skills and footy smarts to execute simple footy lesson 1a which will help move us up the ladder.

Whilst I am at it I will say that our endeavour and diligence cannot be questioned given the quality we have out there which is good enough to take us to finals but honestly not beyond a second week at best we now need to plan to get us to a stage above that whether it be through development of young talent on our list or free agency.

Excellent points Tucker. I wrote this last night on the Bachar Houli thread

"problem from a supporters point of view is that a lot of people cant see that when Hardwick started this job some people said we had a worse list than Fitzroy. That was the starting point, so Hartley went out and got the likes of Houli and Grigg and thats good because that type of player gets you out of the basement but the reality is that they can only get you to the bottom end of the finals at best. Our supporters or some of them at least seem to think that we can be top 4 ... with whom? With recruiting the likes of Aaron Edwards or Chris Knights or Ricky Petterd?  Problem is they are probably the same level as Houli and Grigg ... players who will only get you to the bottom reaches of the eight. They arent capable of taking us higher. Frank Jackson has done a good job but Ellis, Conca and Vlastuin are one in the same ... I see them as foot soldiers. Then we have too many weaknesses in our team, Jackson has supposedly been our best player (according to the coaches) I cant see it, Newman is getting on, we only have 1 ruckman, we dont have a big defender who can a key forward to the cleaners. Those are problems that any club has to deal with if they want to go higher.

Our side IMHO is not capable of top4. Our side has a maximum output that may get us to 7th or 8th and thats about it. If we want to finish higher we need to 1) get better players 2) develop our players better 3) have our coaches continue to improve. Thats it in a nutshell. We lost today because they (Collingwood) have better players than us. Thats the reality."

Didn't read your post last night Ramps but yep pretty much sums up what I was saying.
Great Greek minds.

[Bengal]

Lids is now crap, shoot Rance, drop Vickery, Martin has had it, Houli is no good, Grigg sux, get rid of Petterd, put McGuanne down back,   the coach was out coached......geezus after one loss. A reality check is all we had from a better side.

We will have a few more against Sydney, the Hawks, the Cats, the Dockers, Eagles and the Roos, win a couple of them and we are ok.

We should be more peeed off if we don't beat the Suns, GWS, Dees, Crows, Lions and Port!!

Next week will tell us more about our team, not today!

its funny in a way. but i have to say most of the players are criticised not because we win or lose but because they invariably make the same sort of mistakes win or lose.

and in a way i disagree. getting beat by sides like collingwood tells us more about where we are at than losses or wins against sides that are around us.

we all agree well 90% of us agree that we are a middling side atm.  that being 7th thru 12th or so.

 the logical thing is to go above that and go top 6 or top 4. to do that  we do need to improve in lots of areas including personel.

on those you mention
rance well  win or lose some  point out his weaknesses they dont magically disappear because we have a win., mcguane tries his guts out but the weaknesses never go away.
grigg and houli are soft and are average kicks under certain circumstances win or lose this has not changed. vickery continues to be poor not just because we lost the criticisms are the same even when we win.
i dont need to go on im sure you get the point.
 
if we want to go to the next level we have to get better and we have to find better personell as well. it really has nothing to do with winning or losing.
i said at the start of the yr we could win just 3 games but significantly improve in critical areas that still holds true.

atm yes 7th or 8th should rightly be the aim but it is not the be all end all. without a doubt the main focus has to be on finding more players and developing them properlyto take that next step.

we were a middling team last yr and we are a middling team this yr so what has really changed not a lot really the same flaws are there that were there last yr.

whats the point of having players who go alright when its on their terms but fail when it counts.
jackson houli mcguane king possibly grigg and edwards are all players id be looking to find better petterd   vickery as well and there are others in the gun  atm. but hey this has been stated constantly and regularly regardless of wins or losses.

i have to ask is the sky falling or are people doing what they always do and putting their heads in the sand.

i agree Claw we need to get good players in, unless we find some genuine talent we will never be any good.  Another rebuild is needed.  At least 10 need to go at the end of the year and we need to draft kids and develop them.  2 ruckman 2 KPF  and 2 KPD are essential in the next draft.

We'll be the youngest in the comp but so be it we need to bring in kids.   

[Yeahright]

Mr Tiagra, so you think for 3 quarters we played soft unnacountable footy, and that  was the only thing that hurt us, particlarly in the third? everything else was OK?

will you ever answer the question as to whether 50 tackles would have been an acceptable number?

In his defense I've seen him answer this a few times

[Penelope]

where and what was the answer?

[Penelope]

actually it doesnt really matter as he worked out what i was getting at and said that the top sides dont need a high tackle count but we do, or something along those lines.

[the claw]

actually it doesnt really matter as he worked out what i was getting at and said that the top sides dont need a high tackle count but we do, or something along those lines.

in 2012 the top sides had high tackle counts none were below an ave of 50. only two averaged less than 60 tackles a game ad and wce who both ave 59 tackles a game.
id say an ave of 60 tackles a game is the minimum we should be aiming at.
just for the record we ave 62 tackles a game last yr and we were fairly  competetive in all games.

no surprise the only time we have gone over 50 tackles a gamer this yr we played our best footy against the dogs we played with intensity and applied pressure.

tackle count is a concern so is the intensity levels we are going at 41 tackles a game is that good enough  no other side is below 50 tackles a game the next lowest and closest to us is both stkilda and gws going at 51 tackles a game

[Penelope]

collingwood had 48 against us. those that love to leap on a single stat have saying that number is too low.

for someone who pooh pooh stats all the time im surprised you put such credence on a single stat in isolation.

also the overall trend in tackles seems to be down this year.

[Judge Roughneck]

heads are just going into the sandpit claw. we are middle of the road and our recruiting this year was aimed at cementing our middle of the road status.

Frankly this is rubbish.

Our four national draft picks were 17 or 18 yoa.

[Rampstar]

heads are just going into the sandpit claw. we are middle of the road and our recruiting this year was aimed at cementing our middle of the road status.

Frankly this is rubbish.

Our four national draft picks were 17 or 18 yoa.

you dont think that getting petterd, knights, stephenson etc was aimed at just getting us into the eight?

[the claw]

collingwood had 48 against us. those that love to leap on a single stat have saying that number is too low.

for someone who pooh pooh stats all the time im surprised you put such credence on a single stat in isolation.

also the overall trend in tackles seems to be down this year.

when the stats back up the percieved weaknesses id say you take notice.
lots have complained about the lack of intensity the lack of tackling pressure and the poor skills. just to keep that stat in perspective collingwood had 48 tackles low for them yet we had just 33 thats a difference of 15 its massive when we have just 33 tackles.

we are currently last for ave tackles per game and by some margin.
 in all fairness to those who are complaining id say there is some cause for  concern.   its not just tackling imo we have too many who dont work both ways dont do the team things  and we dont play with enough intensity bulldogs excepted. our over all pressure created percieved pressure and some easy ball for our players against the dogs.. in all other games we have felt that percieved pressure and it reflects in the mistakes  turnovers and constant skill errors..

tackling stats like all stats can be misleading.  it could mean you are chasing tail all game and are second to the ball. i agree stats by themselves can be misleading but whos looking at them in isolation.
 sides who are winning well are averaging a decent amount of tackles along with managing to win contests.  they win games  because they have a good balance between defense  attack and ball winning.. the same can be said for the finals teams of last yr.

 in all honesty are you telling us we have that balance right atm. if so i disagree. they beat us not just in tackles but had 57 more marks that says what. they had more contested ball yet out tackled us simply put it was not good enough.

i dont know about you but i want to see the intensity lift and the tackles happen.  bruise free footy wont get you to finals and certainly not top 4. imo to be a good side first and foremost comes good defense right across the ground.

[Tigeritis™©®]

collingwood had 48 against us. those that love to leap on a single stat have saying that number is too low.

for someone who pooh pooh stats all the time im surprised you put such credence on a single stat in isolation.

also the overall trend in tackles seems to be down this year.

when the stats back up the percieved weaknesses id say you take notice.
lots have complained about the lack of intensity the lack of tackling pressure and the poor skills. just to keep that stat in perspective collingwood had 48 tackles low for them yet we had just 33 thats a difference of 15 its massive when we have just 33 tackles.

we are currently last for ave tackles per game and by some margin.
 in all fairness to those who are complaining id say there is some cause for  concern.   its not just tackling imo we have too many who dont work both ways dont do the team things  and we dont play with enough intensity bulldogs excepted. our over all pressure created percieved pressure and some easy ball for our players against the dogs.. in all other games we have felt that percieved pressure and it reflects in the mistakes  turnovers and constant skill errors..

tackling stats like all stats can be misleading.  it could mean you are chasing tail all game and are second to the ball. i agree stats by themselves can be misleading but whos looking at them in isolation.
 sides who are winning well are averaging a decent amount of tackles along with managing to win contests.  they win games  because they have a good balance between defense  attack and ball winning.. the same can be said for the finals teams of last yr.

 in all honesty are you telling us we have that balance right atm. if so i disagree. they beat us not just in tackles but had 57 more marks that says what. they had more contested ball yet out tackled us simply put it was not good enough.

i dont know about you but i want to see the intensity lift and the tackles happen.  bruise free footy wont get you to finals and certainly not top 4. imo to be a good side first and foremost comes good defense right across the ground.

Top post Claw.