Best 22 in 21

[townsendcalling]

We can change our team, and our game plan, on a week to week basis to suit our opponents.

I look forward to the day when we maintain our successful game plan and solid crew of 24 or so players and OTHER teams are forced to adjust against us!  THAT is progress!!

[Baggers]

I look forward to the day when we maintain our successful game plan and solid crew of 24 or so players and OTHER teams are forced to adjust against us!  THAT is progress!!

As I mentioned last year, I don't buy into the 'best 22'. To me it is a best 25-31... with a backbone starting 16 - the core. Many have said that to be top 4 and a contender it is the strength of your 'last picked 6' who have a big say in ultimate success.

Assuming all are fit and in form, my 16 'core' players would be:

Cripps
McKay
Jones
Docherty
Walsh
Martin
Weitering
C Curnow
E Curnow
Setterfield
Williams
Saad
DeKoning
Casboult
Fisher
SPS

The next 6 would come from (and rounding out our best 25 - 22/3 emergencies)
Silvagni
Murphy
McGovern
Betts
Plowman
Marchbank
Williamson
Gibbons
Newman

Then those rounding out to 28:
Kennedy
Pittonet
Newnes


Last chance brigade (any of whom could move up to being in the top 25 by year's end):
Dow
O'Brien
Cunningham

That's not a bad first 31.


And the unknowns (with fingers crossed for strong advancement):
Kemp
Stocker
Philp
Ramsay
Honey
Owies
Cottrell
Carroll
Durdin
Fogarty
Parks

[DJC]

I like that approach Baggers ... but Murphy would be in my first 16 and Cuningham would be 18th picked (after Plowman).

Fisher would drop out of the first 16 and Newnes would have to be in the next six.

Hopefully, several of the unknowns will have displaced more established players before the bye.

[tonyo]

yes but how many of them are key position players?
Gibson 189cm
Stratton 189cm
Birchall 193cm

The rest are a similar sized bunch of midgets.  We don't need to find the next big thing to help out our defense.  We wouldn't want to go in without Liam and Jacob very frequently but hawthorn managed to win 3 flags in a row because they had consistency in their lineup, consistency in how players played roles, and a bit of luck (which all successful teams need) that breakdowns were few and far between.  There were quite a few unsung heros in their teams.  We have a few players that fit that bill if they could stop breaking down.

The point in making is that without Brian Lake hawthorn were a team of short defenders and we are not.

Defenders' lives are so much easier when they are playing behind a strong and ruthless midfield and forward line who don't let the ball travel down the ground with any speed.

The Hawthorn midfield and half forward line of that era were a dominant bunch who made sure that the ball was more likely to go forward at each stoppage.  Once it was in their forward half, Hodge martialled a wall to keep it that way.  And if they didn't have the ball, they squeezed super hard until a mistake was forced.

Accordingly, Gibson, Stratton, Birchall et al didn't have to contend with the ball sky-rocketing into their zones with a bunch of one-on-ones.  It was far more controlled than that, and easier to group-defend (Gibson's favourite job was third man up...).

Defence is not just about defenders -  it's about forwards and midfielders putting pressure on their respective opponents and covering each other's butts.  When that doesn't happen, the defenders are faced with an avalanche that is almost impossible to stop. 
.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Birchall doesnt/didnt defend he is purely a rebounder IMO.....Gibson played taller against certain opponents where he could use his pace and fitness and thats why he was handy vs Buddy but you wouldnt have him on players like Lynch, Hawkins, Dixon and expect him to cope. I think one of our main problems is small defenders and finding ones who can defend and not just rebound.
Saad doesnt like having to man up, Docherty and Simpson both like to work of their man and thats why small forwards have worried us over the years.
I'm interested in our round 1 team and wanting to know can we get away with a player like Marchbank down back vs one of the Tigers smalls given they only play two KP forwards with four smalls and Martin every now and then.
You really have to adjust your backline each week to get the match ups right and you probably need a back 8-10 who you can pick from to find the right combo's.

[tragic123]

Hi ElwoodBlues1 - I agree you need to be flexible to match your opponents but i disagree that 8-10 are required.

I believe 7 -8 players to choose from should be sufficient. If you look at all the top teams their backline is stable every week and the mix of players is able to cover the opposition no matter the make up of their forward line. If you look at Richmond Nathan Broad/Grimes Balta are just able to do enough against talls to get the ball to ground/mark or even match up on smaller players.

I agree that some of our current defenders aren't flexible enough to match up on most types. Plowman plays better on the smaller types as he is not very good overhead. I think if Marchbank is ever able to play a full season he will assist with our match ups.

[Gointocarlton]

Birchall doesnt/didnt defend he is purely a rebounder IMO.....Gibson played taller against certain opponents where he could use his pace and fitness and thats why he was handy vs Buddy but you wouldnt have him on players like Lynch, Hawkins, Dixon and expect him to cope. I think one of our main problems is small defenders and finding ones who can defend and not just rebound.
Saad doesnt like having to man up, Docherty and Simpson both like to work of their man and thats why small forwards have worried us over the years.
I'm interested in our round 1 team and wanting to know can we get away with a player like Marchbank down back vs one of the Tigers smalls given they only play two KP forwards with four smalls and Martin every now and then.
You really have to adjust your backline each week to get the match ups right and you probably need a back 8-10 who you can pick from to find the right combo's.

EB what cunning kents like Clarkson and Hardwick do is come up with styles and tactics you mention above that force the other mob to match up to them or try and contain them. Why can't our mob come with something radical and left field to keep the oppo guessing for a change. Carlton coaches always try and make the players conform to something they can't execute well enough for long enough. Come up with radical tactics that match the strengths and assets of our group that will cause problems for others.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Hi ElwoodBlues1 - I agree you need to be flexible to match your opponents but i disagree that 8-10 are required.

I believe 7 -8 players to choose from should be sufficient. If you look at all the top teams their backline is stable every week and the mix of players is able to cover the opposition no matter the make up of their forward line. If you look at Richmond Nathan Broad/Grimes Balta are just able to do enough against talls to get the ball to ground/mark or even match up on smaller players.

I agree that some of our current defenders aren't flexible enough to match up on most types. Plowman plays better on the smaller types as he is not very good overhead. I think if Marchbank is ever able to play a full season he will assist with our match ups.

Gday Tragic, I think Grimes and players like Broad, Vlastuin, Balta can play on a greater range of opponents, think I remember Grimes even playing on Eddie Betts in one game. Our blokes are not as flexible and I think we need a slightly larger pool of players to choose from to get the matchups right. ie Marchbank isnt going to be able to handle a Rioli, Castagna, Butler type or a Tom Lynch but I could probably put Tom Williamson on a small quicker player and get a better result. I'm also including players like Stocker, Oscar McDonald(if drafted in), Casboult, Newman as part of my backline group. You need injury backup as well as the ability to rotate players who are performing poorly on the day. Zac Williams is half back flanker by trade and he may have to go back at some stage depending on our needs so thats why I think we need about ten players in the mix with a core of say 5 players who are regular starters down back.

[DJC]

Hi ElwoodBlues1 - I agree you need to be flexible to match your opponents but i disagree that 8-10 are required.

I believe 7 -8 players to choose from should be sufficient. If you look at all the top teams their backline is stable every week and the mix of players is able to cover the opposition no matter the make up of their forward line. If you look at Richmond Nathan Broad/Grimes Balta are just able to do enough against talls to get the ball to ground/mark or even match up on smaller players.

I agree that some of our current defenders aren't flexible enough to match up on most types. Plowman plays better on the smaller types as he is not very good overhead. I think if Marchbank is ever able to play a full season he will assist with our match ups.

We generally have 8 players rotating through the backline; six starting backs, one on the bench and one alternating between wing and the backline.  If we cop an injury, or we have to move a player (for positive or negative reasons), we need another couple of players who can play in defence.  Depending on the 22, we will have 8 players who will play in defence for all or part of the game, as well as Williams, McGovern, Newnes, Casboult, etc who are competent defenders.

We do need a stable defence and, like EB, I think that we should have a settled core - I would go for Weitering, Jones, Docherty, Plowman and Saad - with Petrevski-Seton, Williamson, Marchbank, Newman and, hopefully, Stocker and Kemp in regular contention for the other three defensive spots.

[Pratty]

B: Saad, Jones, Plowman
Hb: Williamson, Weitering, Docherty
C: Murphy, Cripps, E.Curnow
Hf: Martin, Casboult, Gibbons
F: Betts, McKay, Fisher
Foll: De Koning, Williams
Rov: Walsh
I/c: Fogarty, Petrevski-Seton, Setterfield, Silvagni
Emerg: Durdin, Cuningham, Pittonet, Dow

*Newman, C.Curnow, Marchbank, Kemp ? over injury/fitness