AFL Rd 9 2023 Pre Game Prognostications Carlton vs Western Bulldogs

[kruddler]

They're not good enough to pick up the slack when talls are down.
Brisbanes Cameron and Bailey kicked 8 goals between them while their talls were ineffectual. They picked up the slack.
If Charlie and H are tied down we are screwed as small forwards simply not good enough to step up.
We either accept mediocrity or gun for a flag.

Lions capitalised on turnovers.

They got one, their smalls ran out the back, found space and got easy goals. They didn't do much to get those goals, the hard work was done up the ground, they just got on the end of them.

Unfortunately our smalls didn't get the same kind of manic pressure/service as the Lions did. Thats through no fault of their own though.

I can't recall a week that you haven't targetted the small forwards as being 'the problem'.
What is it exactly that you want to see from them that you are not seeing, is it simply goals?

Motlop + Durdin
4 goals, 13 disposals, 10 tackles with 5 of them inside 50.
74% and 79% time on ground.

Cameron+Bailey
8 goals, 24 disposals, 10 tackles with 6 of them inside 50.
87% and 80% time on ground.

FYI, that TOG translates to an extra 18 minutes (9 each) their forwards were on the ground compared to ours.

[Professer E]

You forgot goal assists, an important stat.
But they were, based on disposals and goals twice as effective as our two  = contributed 24 points more  =  essentially the margin.

  I think it comes down to impact (a hard thing to measure), not just flitting in and out of the game.  What are blokes doing when they don't have the ball is the question ? Are they consistently presenting or getting to good positions.... because I'm not the only one who doesn't think they do it often enough.

One of our real problems is consistency, we have no bankable players.  For example, Newman was close to BOG for us versus the Giants, yet he stunk on Friday.  Why does output vary so much from game to game,?

[Thryleon]

You forgot goal assists, an important stat.
But they were, based on disposals and goals twice as effective as our two  = contributed 24 points more  =  essentially the margin.

  I think it comes down to impact (a hard thing to measure), not just flitting in and out of the game.  What are blokes doing when they don't have the ball is the question ? Are they consistently presenting or getting to good positions.... because I'm not the only one who doesn't think they do it often enough.

One of our real problems is consistency, we have no bankable players.  For example, Newman was close to BOG for us versus the Giants, yet he stunk on Friday.  Why does output vary so much from game to game,?

leading at players and trying to get in dangerous positions whilst our mids kicked it straight at the opposition defenders is my answer.

I'm happy for the smalls to wear some pressure to perform but our team lost through poor decision making and execution.

No point dropping honey when he lead at the footy multiple times only for the next forward entry to hit Charlie or Harry's direct opponent.

I actually don't think they played well but even durdin at one point got out the back and the forward entry to him fell into his defender in front of him, with the end result intercept mark and rebound with durdin having to attempt to take mark of the year over a player twice his size whilst Harry was off getting treatment for a head injury.

[Thryleon]

They're not good enough to pick up the slack when talls are down.
Brisbanes Cameron and Bailey kicked 8 goals between them while their talls were ineffectual. They picked up the slack.
If Charlie and H are tied down we are screwed as small forwards simply not good enough to step up.
We either accept mediocrity or gun for a flag.

Not sure what relevance the opposition smalls have to ours.  They got different delivery from a better performing team.

[Thryleon]

You know I've waited two days, and I've seen all manner of blunder and bluster about our game Friday night, and not one person has mentioned that where we cost ourselves the most is in footy basics. 

We coughed up one goal to Charlie Cameron.  Kemp had the ball deep in defence, started to feel heat, dished it off by by hand to acres who wasn't that far away and rather than put body between acres and Cameron, kemp then threw an arm out in the worst attempt to shepherd I've seen, so much so it was completely ineffective when he really should have held it for maybe 2 seconds longer, run closer to the man bearing down and worn the tackle or handed off then shepherded properly, acres doesn't get caught and we don't concede.

This is the stuff that separates us from the best.  Not the game plan or the inability to hit targets (IMHO this is choosing the wrong target not execution errors) and I think we could be much cleaner in general and it would reflect better.

We are getting burnt on the turnover because like all teams we are spreading choosing the wrong target then turning it over and aren't quick enough to correct it because of when and where we turn it over. 

We aren't actually as bad as everyone thinks, and I reckon we can beat the bulldogs with a correction in execution and no wild fantastic changes required.

[kruddler]

You know I've waited two days, and I've seen all manner of blunder and bluster about our game Friday night, and not one person has mentioned that where we cost ourselves the most is in footy basics. 

We coughed up one goal to Charlie Cameron.  Kemp had the ball deep in defence, started to feel heat, dished it off by by hand to acres who wasn't that far away and rather than put body between acres and Cameron, kemp then threw an arm out in the worst attempt to shepherd I've seen, so much so it was completely ineffective when he really should have held it for maybe 2 seconds longer, run closer to the man bearing down and worn the tackle or handed off then shepherded properly, acres doesn't get caught and we don't concede.

This is the stuff that separates us from the best.  Not the game plan or the inability to hit targets (IMHO this is choosing the wrong target not execution errors) and I think we could be much cleaner in general and it would reflect better.

We are getting burnt on the turnover because like all teams we are spreading choosing the wrong target then turning it over and aren't quick enough to correct it because of when and where we turn it over. 

We aren't actually as bad as everyone thinks, and I reckon we can beat the bulldogs with a correction in execution and no wild fantastic changes required.

That incident is the difference between someone who plays AFL consistently and someone who is still getting used to the pace of the game.

It was terrible, it should never have happened, i doubt he'll make the same mistake again.

Kemp has performed so well that he has somewhat displaced Young from key post (it helps that TDK is inept as a ruck/KPP and Young is a better option....but we may be going back to Jack soon enough).

[kruddler]

You forgot goal assists, an important stat.
But they were, based on disposals and goals twice as effective as our two  = contributed 24 points more  =  essentially the margin.

  I think it comes down to impact (a hard thing to measure), not just flitting in and out of the game.  What are blokes doing when they don't have the ball is the question ? Are they consistently presenting or getting to good positions.... because I'm not the only one who doesn't think they do it often enough.

One of our real problems is consistency, we have no bankable players.  For example, Newman was close to BOG for us versus the Giants, yet he stunk on Friday.  Why does output vary so much from game to game,?

Last question first....
Because we are still developing. We are still learning to play together. Kemp, Motlop, Honey, Cincotta, Hollands, Acres all played on the weekend. They have played a total of 84 games in navy blue between them. Add in Durdin, Cerra, Hewitt and we have 9 players who have donned the navy blue a total of 130 times, an average of 14 games.

How well do you reckon they know how eachother plays? Most of them are still trying to work out how to play the game themselves, so how anybody else knows what to expect from them is anybody's guess.

First question next...
Cameron - 2 goal assists, nobody else had any.
If you want to normalise the other stats, that is expand them so they played the same game time, we'd get an extra goal and a few more disposals out of them to even the ledger up a bit.
However, Charlie Cameron is about the best small forward in the game, and we have a few blokes who still need directions on how to get to Marvel stadium they are so fresh by comparison.
Did anyone think that we'd be able to match Charlie Camerons output?

FYI, he is a 4 time leading goalkicker with Brisbane (last 4 years) and is leading theirs this year as well, despite big Joe Daniher up there. He is currently 3rd in the coleman medal behind Jezza Cameron and our own Charlie. He's a former AA. He is top shelf.
Our guys are still finding their feet.
Durdin (21yo) - 29 games
Motlop (19yo) - 19 games

Cameron (28yo) - 183 games
Bailey (23yo) - 101 games

[madbluboy]

I'm very happy with Durdin and Motlop. They both will be stars.

[Professer E]

Sorry, I'm not into hypotheticals or "they would have kicked more if they played the same time on ground", that's speculation. 

The raw stats say that yhe other pair kicked twice as many goals plus two goal assists, so they contributed 10 goals as opposed to 4.  Ergo they were at least twice as effective as our pair. 

[kruddler]

Sorry, I'm not into hypotheticals or "they would have kicked more if they played the same time on ground", that's speculation. 

The raw stats say that yhe other pair kicked twice as many goals plus two goal assists, so they contributed 10 goals as opposed to 4.  Ergo they were at least twice as effective as our pair.

Its not hypothetical, its fact. You can't contribute if you are on the bench.
More time on the ground is more contribution.

Its also not correct to assume that with the 2 goal assists, thats 10 goals. Charlie Cameron may have assisted Bailey twice. Still 8 goals.

But yes, they were more effective. Nobody is trying to tell you otherwise.
One is an AA, best small forward in the game which has been kicking club leading records repeatedly. Has played over 5 times as many games as our 2 players combined.
The other has played 100 games, twice as many games as our players combined and has the luxury of the best opponent going to his teammate every week.

What are you expecting from our 2? To be that good? Not going to happen anytime soon....if at all.
Not many duos in the whole league would be able to deliver the same output at those 2.

Not many other clubs would be disappointed with what we got from our 2 this week.....but here we are.
Not many people have acknowledged that those 2 scored twice as many goals as our 2 coleman medalists combined either.

Its bizarre that they are being singled out because the best duo in the league performed better than them.