AFL 2023 Preliminary Final Carlton vs Brisbane Post Game Prognostications

[LP]

I think when a fan fails to give credit and recognition where it is due probably says more about the fan than the player.

For me it is that fan culture that must change for the club to quickly progress.

Go back and watch the replay of the Prelim, you can see the footage of Carlton fans turning in to Yertle the Turtle when the game tightens, sphincters too tight it seems.

Whether fans like it or not, that has an effect of players, the fans wear some of the blame.

Contrast that the the Filth fans starting the "Collingwood" chant when the game gets tight, they lift the players rather than stomp on them! As horrible as it is to admit, the Filth now have it all over us in this regard, but it never use to be this way. Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, before our MC stupidly sold away our home, we use to be the intimidating crowd, at PP or The G!

[Thryleon]

He got kicked out by better players. Yes.

That's what happens when you're the worst team and want to become the best team.
Everyone who said Plowman wasn't good enough were proven correct.

His last 2 afl games were vs adelaide where we got stitched up and he was targeted to score through. 

He was too small for a tall, too tall for a small, didn't really play tall, but defended well enough as he was a smart footballer with limited athletic capacity.

Hes also at the wrong age and Kemp and Cowan have gone past him.

[madbluboy]

I doubt the real life MC is as cut and dry as fans want to suggest.

If I listened to fans and ignore the MC then I would know better. sMurph was a spud, Gibbs NBG, Cottrell a hack, Tuohy a panic merchant, Betts a sellout, Pitto a slug, TDK a moneypit. Martin, Marchbank and McGovern chandeliers. Boyd and Fogarty scared of shadows. Harry a coach killer.

But luckily I don't listen to fans! ;D

Why are you on here then?

[Gointocarlton]

I doubt the real life MC is as cut and dry as fans want to suggest.

If I listened to fans and ignore the MC then I would know better. sMurph was a spud, Gibbs NBG, Cottrell a hack, Tuohy a panic merchant, Betts a sellout, Pitto a slug, TDK a moneypit. Martin, Marchbank and McGovern chandeliers. Boyd and Fogarty scared of shadows. Harry a coach killer.

But luckily I don't listen to fans! ;D

Martin, Marchbank and Gov are chandeliers. So is Cunningham.

[DJC]

He got kicked out by better players. Yes.

That's what happens when you're the worst team and want to become the best team.
Everyone who said Plowman wasn't good enough were proven correct.

Not really.

That argument could be used to support the notion that folk who said Wayne Carey wasn't good enough were eventually proved correct.

Plowman's role was made more difficult by the type of footy we played over six of his eight seasons with us. He was unfairly blamed for losing the odd contest on the last line of defence when the errors were being committed by teammates up the ground.

He retired because his body is no longer up to the demands of AFL, not because he wasn't good enough.

[kruddler]

Imagine if we had gone with one ruckman.  It doesn't matter which one because McInerney would have given either one a touch up.  Playing two rucks curbed his influence.  Playing one ruckman is virtually conceding the ruck contests, allowing McInerney to do as he likes around the ground, and giving Brisbane's midfielders a boost.

Playing one ruckman would mean rucking McKay, a role he hates and is poor at.  It also means taking McKay, our only truly competitive tall forward on the day, away from the forward line.  That would leave Charlie being double-teamed by Andrews and Gardiner ... or we could have had a cooked ruckman "resting" in the forward lne.  That would work well - not, particularly if it was Pitto.  Meanwhile, Daniher would be enjoying little opposition when he gives McInerney a breather and comes up against Harry.

So, we concede an advantage in the ruck and weaken our forward line to bring in a player to add some zip.  Who would that be?  Cuningham finished the season as if he'd had no pre-season.  Fisher did OK when brought back as a loose man in defence but forgot about the defensive part of the role.  Paddy Dow gets a few clearances but doesn't do much else.  Binns is worth considering but it would be tough to debut in a prelim.  Then there's O'Brien and Honey ... wait!

Another option is to bring in Jack Silvagni, despite his lack of match fitness.  He'd provide more of a contest than Harry and maybe get the odd clearance but he certainly wouldn't have the Big O and Daniher quaking in their boots  ...  and the first ruck would still have to do the bulk of the work against a dominant opponent.  The Silvagni as a ruck option should be sealed and labelled "for emergency use only".

I would have played Kemp in place of Cincotta.  Yes, they have different roles but Kemp is quick and agile enough to perform Cincotta's role.  The latter's form dropped off as the season progressed. That's perfectly understandable, but doesn't help when the opposition is running away from him.  Marchbank was one of our better players on the day and I don't understand the criticism of his selection.  It's a bit like the "supporters" who continually criticised Plowman and who were called out by Weitering in his season review.

Jordan Boyd did his job on the day too and his inclusion was a logical response to Brisbane's forward structure.

We didn't lose the game at the selection table, we lost it in our slump when we gave up the chance of home finals.

You know the problem with everything you just wrote?

Its based on trying to stop Brisbane. It makes us reactionary. Nobody has been able to stop Brisbane all year.

You know what? How many teams have been able to stop us when we play who we want?

The moment you spend all your time worrying about stopping the opposition, you lose focus on what you want to do.

So i disagree.
Pick a team to win.
Do not pick a team to try and stop the opposition, let them try and stop you!

[DJC]

You know the problem with everything you just wrote?

Its based on trying to stop Brisbane. It makes us reactionary. Nobody has been able to stop Brisbane all year.

You know what? How many teams have been able to stop us when we play who we want?

The moment you spend all your time worrying about stopping the opposition, you lose focus on what you want to do.

So i disagree.
Pick a team to win.
Do not pick a team to try and stop the opposition, let them try and stop you!

Collingwood went into the GF with two ruckmen.  Together, they got the better of McInerney and that was a significant factor in the final result.

We had the right idea but our ruckmen weren’t quite good enough to make it work.

I think that’s put an end to the argument that you can’t play two ruckmen and two key forwards.

[Sub-Zero]

Imagine if we had gone with one ruckman.  It doesn't matter which one because McInerney would have given either one a touch up.  Playing two rucks curbed his influence.  Playing one ruckman is virtually conceding the ruck contests, allowing McInerney to do as he likes around the ground, and giving Brisbane's midfielders a boost.

Playing one ruckman would mean rucking McKay, a role he hates and is poor at.  It also means taking McKay, our only truly competitive tall forward on the day, away from the forward line.  That would leave Charlie being double-teamed by Andrews and Gardiner ... or we could have had a cooked ruckman "resting" in the forward lne.  That would work well - not, particularly if it was Pitto.  Meanwhile, Daniher would be enjoying little opposition when he gives McInerney a breather and comes up against Harry.

So, we concede an advantage in the ruck and weaken our forward line to bring in a player to add some zip.  Who would that be?  Cuningham finished the season as if he'd had no pre-season.  Fisher did OK when brought back as a loose man in defence but forgot about the defensive part of the role.  Paddy Dow gets a few clearances but doesn't do much else.  Binns is worth considering but it would be tough to debut in a prelim.  Then there's O'Brien and Honey ... wait!

Another option is to bring in Jack Silvagni, despite his lack of match fitness.  He'd provide more of a contest than Harry and maybe get the odd clearance but he certainly wouldn't have the Big O and Daniher quaking in their boots  ...  and the first ruck would still have to do the bulk of the work against a dominant opponent.  The Silvagni as a ruck option should be sealed and labelled "for emergency use only".

I would have played Kemp in place of Cincotta.  Yes, they have different roles but Kemp is quick and agile enough to perform Cincotta's role.  The latter's form dropped off as the season progressed. That's perfectly understandable, but doesn't help when the opposition is running away from him.  Marchbank was one of our better players on the day and I don't understand the criticism of his selection.  It's a bit like the "supporters" who continually criticised Plowman and who were called out by Weitering in his season review.

Jordan Boyd did his job on the day too and his inclusion was a logical response to Brisbane's forward structure.

We didn't lose the game at the selection table, we lost it in our slump when we gave up the chance of home finals.

A very hard post to fault, except for your point on people questioning Marchbank's spot in the team. He played well in any case and Kemp has some more to come, despite his promise. But Marchbank was very poor in the two finals prior. I like Cincotta too, appears to be playing a defensive role on smaller players, would be nice to release him more, but lots of options there with Saad, Newman, Doc and Boyd to name a few.

[kruddler]

Collingwood went into the GF with two ruckmen.  Together, they got the better of McInerney and that was a significant factor in the final result.

We had the right idea but our ruckmen weren’t quite good enough to make it work.

I think that’s put an end to the argument that you can’t play two ruckmen and two key forwards.

Collingwood are a different team to us. They have different players with different strengths....and weaknesses.

FYI, we beat Collingwood and we had 2 rucks and 1 key forward. (Harry and jack didnt play, tdk played forward ruck)

I guess that puts an end to the debate of needing 2 rucks and 2 key forwards. ?

You know what they did....they played to.their strengths and made Brisbane try and beat them. Which is NOT what we did.

[Lods]

Pick a team to win.
Do not pick a team to try and stop the opposition, let them try and stop you!

Isn't it both though in picking a team to win?
In picking a team to win one of the key aspects would be to emphasise your strengths, but also minimise the effectiveness of their key players.

A team would struggle to beat us if they didn't put time into negating the effect of players such as Cripps and Curnow.
If we didn't pay attention to their key movers an opposition side would do some damage.

It has to be a balance.
It's why one side and strategy won't fit every situation and the selection of a side will be 'horses for courses' in terms of all positions.