CHB Waite.
CHF Hartlett & Kreuzer.

On Hansen - would love him, but gee he's an ordinary kick.
Most of his rebounds from 50 would be a turnover.
I'd sooner look elsewhere, though he will be a marking machine when he develops.

I believe with Carlos Jamieson T-Bird and Bower we have players capable of taking on the opposition talls with the option of Waite being swung between defence and attack. Hartlett is obviously going to be given the opportunity to play CHF but given his previous problems we have to have doubts over his body being able to stand up. I think the MC will try Waite Hartlett and Fevola as the three tall forwards with Austin as another option for a third tall forward role at this stage of his career. He is also capable of switching between defence and attack and allows the MC to plan a variety of match ups.

What Amazon said.

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888

If he can stay fit, Hartlett will hold down a key forward position, and prove all his doubters wrong.

However based on his recent history, that's a big if.

_________________
I AM DISENFRANCHISED

1st, I am very happy to hear this, 2nd I agree !!

I see it this way;

Full Back: M. Jamison - IMHO this guy is way under rated by many posters.
CHB: Setanta
3rd def tall: B. Thornton

Back up defenders, Saddington, Bower, Austin

Full Forward: Fev
CHF: J Waite
3rd tall: B. Fisher

Other talls, Hartlett, Edwards, Cloke, Kreuzer

We certainly have enough talls on our list. We have a good mix of forwards and backs, with people like Waite and Setanta who can go both forward and back.

All in all, I don't think CHB or CHF will be a huge problem!

_________________
1. Walker,
2. Menzel,
3. Murphy,
4. Gibbs,
5. Judd.

Maybe, but we don't have many proven quality performers in key positions (Fev being the obvious exception). There's a good chance that some of the players you mentioned might not be there next year. I think we'll be better placed in 8 months time to assess our tall stocks and plan our recruiting accordingly.

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

Interesting that Carrazzo said this week it is good we DON'T have a CHF as there are plenty of guys vying for the spot and the club will rotate players through there.

So it's true, CHF is an issue

I third this comment with the exception of Bower - I believe he is seriously overrated, hope to be proven wrong. Fisher is the wildcard in the deck though, we could have quite a potent forward line with him and fev having some space

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

How is it an issue if the club feels there are a number of players that can rotate through there?

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

It is an issue because, as Carrazzo said, we don't have a CHF.

We don't have a nominated CHF as there are a number of players vying for the spot.

That doesn't mean no one can play CHF.

Thats like a club having Dean Cox, Brendan Lade. Matthew Leunberger and Peter Everitt in its side so a couple of them rotate through the bench and full-forward and one misses selection and you say gee we don't have a ruckman.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

No, the point is, right now we don't have an established CHF we know will produce in 2008. Waite is very close, and I'd be happy for him to play forward but it seems he is needed down back.

We have options though.

Waite, Setanta, Cloke, Hartlett, Fevola, Fisher, Ackland could all rotate through there at some stage.

As has been mentioned, the days of having a traditional CHF have changed anyway so a lot of the time we may not have one at all.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

WE DONT NEED ONE BECAUSE THE POSITION DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE

WE WONT PLAY CRASH N BASH FOOTY TARGETED THROUGH "CHF"

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

All the others (to be rotated) are speculative. You are kidding yourself if you think we are home and hosed with a bunch of experimentals rotating through CHF. The fact nobody is set in stone there is an issue, that is until someone puts their hand up as a genuine CHF or we have a few rotations who all contribute enough.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH !

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

Understand your point and think you might well be right. However, I would argue there is probably still a need for a big CHF. There will be times in some games where you need to take a big pack mark or you need a big body.

I recall the game at Telstra Dome last year when Fev was being double/triple teamed, and Pagan slotted Cloke in the goal square, and his big body helped bring the ball to ground and also helped free up Fevola. We slammed on a number of goals instantly as a result of that move.

I also recall seeing West Coast vs. St.Kilda at Telstra Dome and saw Kozi break open the game with two big pack marks.

Yes, the game has changed and one of the biggest changes is possession style footy and seeking hard leading forwards who can run and run until they find space.

However, with the same token the game has also degenerated to (at times) a low scoring affair, and I would argue it is still important to have a big bodied forward who can take pack marks and bust open packs, as a means of breaking the drought on the scoreboard.

Whoever suggested Ackland is fooling themselves. He is a hopeless footballer, who lacks heart and courage, two things needed for the big CHF role.

Kreuzer will be a ruck, if you believe what Ratten says.

Hartlett is always injured and hasn't shown much in 3 years anyhow.

Cloke shows some signs, but is he THAT good a player?

Fevola is not a pack marker, and if you try to make him that sort of player he won't last til he's 30.

Fisher is not a big bodied forward, and is also fragile.

Edwards is mid-sized.

The lsit goes on.

Setanta and Aisake are maybes.

We will struggle without that option in my view.

Waite will play CHB, Fev is a hard leading forward, and the other names you have thrown up are yet to prove they can consistently produce at the highest level, let alone as a forward.

This is my point.

You are of course right grro.

Would it help if the question was "What are the club's plans for our third key position forward (after Fev and Fish)?"


There you go. You have the answer to your question.


Waite will play "CHB"; AFAIK the club has already stated this.

As for "CHF", the club will rotate all the potential candidates through the position, and see who lifts his game to the standard required make it his own.

_________________
I AM DISENFRANCHISED

Great thread VB.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill though.

Have a look at your opening post. You mention the statement "not smart enough" several times refeering to a few players. I think that's your opinion, and it's wrong. I've asked this question to some senior Carlton people in the past (when development and game plan left alot to be desired), and here's the response:

If you had undertaken the training as these guys have with their skills, their knowledge of various game plans, opposition game plans, comprehending the many mistakes they have made (via video and one on one coaching) you could say they are smarter than most spectators who suggest otherwise.

VB, I think you're suggesting we have no CHF or CHB options the way you're argument goes. We don't have to have an established and fixed CHF, and we have many options...many, many options to play through there.

As long as everyone is well drilled in Ratts' games plans, then I think we'll be fine. We are not a short team, and if you evaluate the number of goals scored without a pack mark being taken, you'll realise that other than Jonathon Brown, Wayne Carey and Robert Walls, CHF's are not 5 goal players. And where Jonathon Brown kicks 5 or 10, that doesn't necessarily amount to a win, other than a win for Brown, because all teams have an achilles heal; it's our job to exploit that, and versatlity will give us that.

I'm not in the slightest worried. I refuse to judge the like of Hartlett with the past, because the past is the past, and blokes like him haven't really had the opportunity to shine under the guidance (?) of Pagan.

But a very good thread and great discussion. Refer to Grofunger and True Blue Brad for a bit of balance in your thought processes.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue