Football Department Review

[ElwoodBlues1]

[member=906]Lods[/member]...
I think 6 is directed at me, but a few others ring true to what i've been saying as well.

I think there is one that isn't really covered, which i've suggested as well.

Just because we are having a review, it doesn't mean its going to work. It may make things worse. We may cut the wrong guy. For all we know, Barker was the wrong guy. He may have been the glue holding everything together. He may have been the mediator.

Whatever happens from here is going to get a different picture of what its been like over the past 18 months. Now people are going to be doing differernt roles, covering for Barker, and after only 2 weeks of doing that, a routine and/or stress levels are yet to be found. Any review based on this state of flux will most likely be an inaccurate one.

One thing worth noting was from the PaulPs article was that in each major independent review in recent history, the GM of football has gone. As best as i can tell that is Brad Lloyd. Given Matthew Lloyds new found knowledge of how all things Carlton seem to be going, i'd suggest Brads job is very much on the line.....and rightly so.....despite Matthew Lloyds protesting.

Going to be hard to review Lloyd properly with Liddle providing cover, same with the other member of the trinity in Agresta. With Liddle overseeing proceedings with Sayers it isn't truly Independent and as you say it doesn't mean a Review is the magic wand for success.

[Gointocarlton]

Going to be hard to review Lloyd properly with Liddle providing cover, same with the other member of the trinity in Agresta. With Liddle overseeing proceedings with Sayers it isn't truly Independent and as you say it doesn't mean a Review is the magic wand for success.

Lets not confuse overseeing with influencing. I expect to the the 3 external amigos to review and make recommendations irrespective of what the Richmond Bloke or Sayers think. I cannot see them being intimidated into a result by a schmuck like Baldylocks.

[raven19]

Interesting info in here too, thought posting it in this thread most suitable.

Doesn't paint Cripps in a great light, mind you limited ruck talent doesn't help either re feeding your mids.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/w.../100218856

[kruddler]

Interesting info in here too, thought posting it in this thread most suitable.

Doesn't paint Cripps in a great light, mind you limited ruck talent doesn't help either re feeding your mids.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/w.../100218856

Those figures are somewhat skewed because he was running at about 50% for the start of the year.

A few points worth noting...
1. Meters gained for Cripps will always be done compared to most because he has a high handball to kick ratio.
2. His turnovers will be lower because he has a high handball to kick ratio. We don't want him being more adventurous, we want him to handball to a teammate....not kick.
3. His clearances will be 'on par' with most because he was injured early and because he is being tagged....sometimes by more than 1 player. Some of the other players with higher clearance rates have Elite rucks like Gawn giving them first use. Its not simply about Cripps, but those around him that can affect his numbers.

[Lods]

[member=906]Lods[/member]...
I think 6 is directed at me, but a few others ring true to what i've been saying as well.

Not just at you Kruds, although you've laid out a logical reason why we could finish with more wins in the second half.
There are quite a few across the various Carlton forums and pages that think we will be much better in the second half. and they're also pointing at things like easier opposition and the improved injury situation.

The interesting one for me is the media aren't embracing this theory.
They're dining out on "Crisis at Carlton"
But wait and see them pounce on us if things are better.
it will be "Silly old Carlton, jumping at shadows and turning the joint upside down for no reason.  Anyone could see they were going to come good"

[Thryleon]

Interesting reading:

The best reviews are where the staff in the department feel the review is for the department, not on the department. That the reviewer is there to make everyone better rather than look for scapegoats. This requires great communication, relationships and explanation of the nuance. It feels as though this horse may have bolted with the Carlton process and it will require strong leadership to bring it back.

Now articles in the newspaper are a bit non genuine.

"you dont do a review and then sack the boot studder"

makes it out to show that a review is there to review people.

They arent.  These consultants are brought in regularly across all works of life, to check what people do, and how they do it, and whether or not the PROCESS, STRUCTURE and RESPONSIBLITIES measure up with the currently leading standards of who, what, where, when and how in terms of running a football club.

This will review the people indirectly, and give them reasons to see what isnt working, and how to fix.

This process is one of identification, not one of excuses.

Our club has earned the mantle of needing a reason to sack a coach, but I suspect this is a bit different based on the statements made by liddle and co, and just by the sheer volume of turnover we have had.

When you change all the people and things still dont work, at some point, you need to look beyond the people and how the place runs. 

[Baggers]

So we're having a review, why?
There seems to be a lot of different opinions on this one.
To summarise...

1) Sayers wants to make a clear distinction between his presidency and the previous one. He wants to present an image to supporters that he is a man who is not afraid to take action if necessary.
2) Sayer’s has gone off ‘half-cocked’ based on a couple of conversations with players.
3) This is the review we had to have.
4) It’s the review we had to have but the timing is a bit off and it ‘could have, should have’ waited until seasons end.
5) It’s the review we had to have, but it should look at all aspects of the club operation rather than just the football department.
6) The review comes at a strange time given we have a much better second half draw and players coming back from injury. There is a danger we could end up looking a bit panicky and silly by season’s end.
7) It’s a time buying exercise designed to temporarily ease pressure and give the impression the club is responding to supporter’s concerns.
8 ) We don’t need to review anything, we’re tracking fine. It's just taking a bit of time for things to gel, but once we get games into players together and a few players back from injury things will turn quickly.

The bizarre thing about this one is that you could just about make a solid case for any one of those options...or a combination of those options.

9. The incoming Pres has knowledge that we're not aware of/spoke to many more folks than indicated in the media and is a personality type not given to sitting on a problem when clearly presented - a man inclined to action, especially when it can positively impact on-field performance sooner rather than later.

[LP]

Give our Tribunal Advocates the ar5e!

[capcom]

It took them three hours to arrive at a decision !?!?!?

[IvanAwfulbigone]

Give our Tribunal Advocates the ar5e!

Outrageous verdicts by the Tribunal.
You can’t tell me Mackay braced for impact any less than Plowman did. Watch Mackay’s eyes - he takes them OFF the ball.

Plowman AND Mackay suspended? Me happy.
Plowman AND Mackay exonerated? Me less happy.
Plowman suspended and Mackay exonerated? OUTRAGEOUS!!!