Round 1 - Blues v Tigers (21 March) Pre-Game

[LP]

Im only worried about Collingwood and GWS out of that lot.

Hawthorn are a mixed bag, and we should beat St. Kilda, GC, and the Bulldogs comfortably.

The rest are beatable but we arent going to be consistent enough to beat them all at the moment.  Chalk us up to 3-6 wins depending on luck.

If we start with that many, Bolton will be safe for another couple of years.

Yes I agree Thry, simply because there is no hard point of demarcation between improvement and stagnation, and opposition form is not a certainty or constant, even if they were not wins. If we have improved to the point where wins are increasingly likely it has to coincide with losses being less likely, therefore close losses tip over to become draws or narrow victories.

The swing in fortune can be dramatic, keeping in mind it was two years ago that we had learned about winning ugly and forced close results against the politically correct trend line. We did so with a much weaker list than today! I suspect that 2018 was out of kilter in that we succumbed to external pressures to change our game plan, I think we should have just kept playing to win ugly and damn the media spuds! 2019 will be different, I suspect we will be closer to the Dawks than The Aints, and many experts have pegged the Dawks middle tier.

[flyboy77]

I suspect that 2018 was out of kilter in that we succumbed to external pressures to change our game plan, I think we should have just kept playing to win ugly and damn the media spuds! 2019 will be different.

This + losing Doc + an abnormally long list of lengthy injuries.....

2017 should be the benchmark - and the 2019 team is much better than the team of 2 years ago....(well, hopefully)!

Malthouse (not a fan but....) reckons circa 10 wins a possibility - have to agree with him.

[PaulP]

The game plan needed to change, and I doubt the media had anything to with it. You won't win much if you score 72 points per game with an average of 78, as we did in 2017. Any progress achieved that year was illusory. Half the team behind the ball and endless keepings off. Turn it up.

[flyboy77]

Illusory?

Rubbish Paul....no one said the game plan didn't need to evolve but DEFENCE, defence, DEFENCE is what wins flags more often than not.

This year, both our midfield and forward line will be markedly stronger and the mids (hopefully will work better defensively) and help take heat off the defence....

[PaulP]

I'm not much interested in cliches. Look at the numbers - teams that win flags generally lose only a handful of games and have a % well above 120. The recent Swans and Saints teams are minor exceptions to the rule.

Why do I need to state the obvious ? Defence and attack are both vital. You won't win much if you leak like a sieve, and you won't win much if you can't score above 100 points per game.

[LP]

The game plan needed to change, and I doubt the media had anything to with it. You won't win much if you score 72 points per game with an average of 78, as we did in 2017. Any progress achieved that year was illusory. Half the team behind the ball and endless keepings off. Turn it up.

Yet Nthmond won a flag starting with tactics that saw them frequently run with 7 or more on the defensive side of the square, scribes cannot have it both ways!

To some of us we(Carlton) appeared to fold in 2018 under external pressure, long before we had completed the job of fixing our defensive structures which started in 2017, to me that made 2018 look chaotic with almost nothing functioning on field. I realise Docherty being absent is a big part of that structure, I can't help but think it was far worse than it needed to be!

But who gives a rats, we have Walsh! ;D

PS: Is there a strong association between scoring 100pts and having a high percentage, other than the Dawks, particularly in the modern AFL era? I suspect not, I think this would be a clear difference between the 80s, 90s and 00s and beyond.

[flyboy77]

I'm not much interested in cliches. Look at the numbers - teams that win flags generally lose only a handful of games and have a % well above 120. The recent Swans and Saints teams are minor exceptions to the rule.

Why do I need to state the obvious ? Defence and attack are both vital. You won't win much if you leak like a sieve, and you won't win much if you can't score above 100 points per game.

You're missing the point entirely. No one has suggested that the CFC team of 16, 17 or 18 was anywhere close to achieving 120%....nor that they were much chop.

But we were able to restrict the opposition to less than 100 pts in 14 or 15 games in 2017. In 2018? 8 or 9 times...

But the 100 point mark is a furphy....even if a desirable benchmark.

Since 2000, 8 teams have won flags scoring less than 100 in the GF - including the mighty offensive units of Geelong and Brisbane....

I think any astute pundit would suggest that defence must be the cornerstone of any successful team (even if kicking goals - as many as possible - remains the aim of the game).

[PaulP]

Yet Nthmond won a flag starting with tactics that saw them frequently run with 7 or more on the defensive side of the square, scribes cannot have it both ways!

To some of us we(Carlton) appeared to fold in 2018 under external pressure, long before we had completed the job of fixing our defensive structures which started in 2017, to me that made 2018 look chaotic with almost nothing functioning on field. I realise Docherty being absent is a big part of that structure, I can't help but think it was far worse than it needed to be!
.......................

Richmond is something of a statistical anomaly, but was still good enough to get a % near 120.

Given our performances last year, I think the media went easy on us. Almost felt sorry for us. In past years, they would have demanded Bolton's head on a platter, torched the place and danced around the ashes.

[PaulP]

You're missing the point entirely. No one has suggested that the CFC team of 16, 17 or 18 was anywhere close to achieving 120%....nor that they were much chop.

But we were able to restrict the opposition to less than 100 pts in 14 or 15 games in 2017. In 2018? 8 or 9 times...

But the 100 point mark is a furphy....even if a desirable benchmark.

Since 2000, 8 teams have won flags scoring less than 100 in the GF - including the mighty offensive units of Geelong and Brisbane....

I think any astute pundit would suggest that defence must be the cornerstone of any successful team (even if kicking goals - as many as possible - remains the aim of the game).

It's not about what you score in the GF, it's about the entire season. With few exceptions, GF's are low scoring affairs.

There are many cornerstones, not just one - defence, offence, injury, coaching, development.

[LP]

Richmond is something of a statistical anomaly, but was still good enough to get a % near 120.

Given our performances last year, I think the media went easy on us. Almost felt sorry for us. In past years, they would have demanded Bolton's head on a platter, torched the place and danced around the ashes.

In aggregate Nthmond of 2017 only scored 120 more points than the Doggies of 2016, many labeled the Doggies dour to play against and the following year Nthmond were labeled exciting! One averaged 90pts the other 84pts, hardly objective is it?

Excluding the Dawks in recent years, the Lions before them, most clubs struggle to average 100pts in a flag year and rarely is the premier the highest scoring club. So I doubt it means much over all.

What is even more uncomfortable, prior to MMs arrival we were one of the higher scoring teams, and fans complained about us playing too many shoot-outs! Is there any way we can win favour?

I really don't give a rats-ar5e what the media want, and this scoring 100pts thing is mostly meaningless media drivel, scoring a 100pts is worthless if your opponent scores 110pts! As most AFL coaches will say, reality is they'd take 1pt to Nil victory any day as long as they get the win! It's in those circumstances that I think BB and the relatively new board at that time showed inexperience.

FFS, in 2017 The Judge was being door stopped and questioned about boring broadcast games, what other AFL President has to put up with that?