AFL Rd 17 2024 Post Game Prognostications Carlton vs GWS

[pew2]

don't worry about charlie ,but as a defender how kemp plays from behind or doesn't jump in the air with hogan .So at half time wat were our defense coaches doing.

[laj]

We didn't need anyone behind the ball in the last, and we ran over GWS despite them subbing off Aleer for another running type.

The problem wasn't in our D50, and moving Charlie would have weakened one of our strengths while doing little to boost our defence.

When Charlie floats back in games, our intent isn't to score, it's to defend a lead. If we move Charlie back sometime in the 2nd-Qtr, we are moving forward with a greatly diminished scoring potential.

If it was to be a shootout, we had to start scoring, we did but it was a Qtr too late!

But when you are giving away a lead at 100mph, your key defender is injured then send him back. Wasn't as if he was having a great day up forward. There was no strength happening forward. He might have stopped a few of those Hogan goals though.

[laj]

To really put the icining on the cake, the Saints just rolled the Swans, had we have won last nite we would have been just one game off top spot.  >

Sometimes there's losses you need to have. I feel we were starting to really get ahead of ourselves, just cruising then turning on the afterburners and blowing sides away whhne they got close as we almost felt like it. That complacency caught up with us and is hopefully knocked out of us.

[laj]

TDK got some clearances and was handy around the ground but Briggs made sure he didnt dominate like we need him to and won the hitouts easily.
I think TDK will appreciate playing on English this week from the WB who is less of the push and shove type ruck and more the athletic type similar to himself. Briggs does a lot of pushing often before the ball is in the contest and reminds me of Nankervis, neither can jump like our man but like to make contact early and then stand their ground and use their strength.
I wouldnt be rushing to pick Pittonet this week either just based on that game....

The other option is to do what Hawthorn did with ruckman Max Bailey in 2013. Play him for 2 1/2 qtrs. then sub him off and let Hale do it after that with a pinch hitter. Reasonable plan unless someone gets injured earlier.

[kruddler]

The dying moments of a game when defending a lead holds no relevance to needing to score goals in the second quarter.

Really, how does that happen under the 6-6-6 rule?

I'd assert in general play he has the opportunity to float back, but when an opponent is scoring from fast breaks or rebound it hasn't happened, because of the reset.

Further, if we moved him back while we were behind, that is to start in D50, we've just robbed Peter to pay Paul. That would be almost as bad as taking the bloke who just kicked your first couple of goals and sending him off the field or up the field to ruck! :o

Go back and watch some.games from the first third of the season and come back here and say that again with a straight face.

[kruddler]

The injury sub is supposed to be just that, to cover injury. The whole supersub coming ont he last quarter and turning games is fantasy, it has hardly happened.

Considering we can cover every player but Weitering and our one ruck, the sub should be Young.

Suddenly people start to see the value in having Silvagni in your team. He can basically cover any position we need if we get desperate.

But yes, the idea of the sub is to cover injury.

Looking at how many talls vs how many smalls we have, the chance of an injury coming to a small is higher than in injury coming to a tall.
Its the same logic i used when i said at the start that you should NEVER put a ruck as your sub. Other people disagreed. Early on some clubs tried it, but everyone eventually got on the same page as me and realised its pointless.
With the chance of an injury occuring to a ruck is 1 in 22, the likelyhood of that ruck sub helping you is very small. Yes, on the odd game it can make a big difference. But in every other game it will end up hurting you.
So play the odds.
Pick a small as a sub.

[PaulP]

Reading over in the Ruck Debate thread and elsewhere, I guess I have a different take on the game. I think GWS played the first quarter displaying the indifferent form of their last several weeks, then something happened at q time, and they played out of their skins for the next 2. I doubt any team would've stopped them in that time period. Whilst it's absolutely possible, personally I didn't notice any arrogance, slackness, cockiness, bath water, Kool Aid or anything else. GWS' numbers were up in several categories, and ours were down. They laid 26 tackles I50, which is an absurd number.

[kruddler]

Reading over in the Ruck Debate thread and elsewhere, I guess I have a different take on the game. I think GWS played the first quarter displaying the indifferent form of their last several weeks, then something happened at q time, and they played out of their skins for the next 2. I doubt any team would've stopped them in that time period. Whilst it's absolutely possible, personally I didn't notice any arrogance, slackness, cockiness, bath water, Kool Aid or anything else. GWS' numbers were up in several categories, and ours were down. They laid 26 tackles I50, which is an absurd number.

I think part of the imbibing happened at the MC meeting.
That filtered down to the playing group somewhat, albeit subconsciously.

[PaulP]

I think part of the imbibing happened at the MC meeting.
That filtered down to the playing group somewhat, albeit subconsciously.

To my way of thinking, if this were the case, I would expect the first q to be the opposite of what it was - us asleep at the wheel, and GWS in the ascendancy. Instead we started like a house on fire.

[northernblue]

As far as Charlie heading or being sent down back to stem the flow, I’m not sure if he was able, Ol mate on fb has been saying all week that Charlie’s been managing an ankle for the last couple of weeks.
If true it may explain why he stayed forward and the lack of 2nd efforts.