Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Wed May 14, 2025 8:43 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 521 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:18 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:12 pm
Posts: 15582
Location: Upper Swan.
grrofunger wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
Hotcox wrote:
If Austin gets a game i will put 100 bucks on the bar at 9T4 in Swan St before the Richmond game next Saturday.


Just checking my frequent flyer points.


im am actually flying over for next weekends game :lol:

ill down the 100 myself


:lol: '

I'm looking at the 'pies game longingly.

But I'm just going to keep the powder dry for later in the year.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:19 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:48 pm
Posts: 4413
Location: Perth
cimm1979 wrote:
Just listened to Daniel Kerr on 6PR.

I realise you can't put to much stock in what they say, but he was very upbeat about their chances. They have set themselves for this game.

Not a bad interview TBH, steered clear of 50% of the cliche's.


Heard the interview as well. While he did give us our due ('probably the form side of the comp right now'), it was quite clear that they are looking forward to the game and fancy their chances ('can't wait to get over there and have a crack at the Blues').

I hope to God we take care of business. It'll be hell over here if we lose.

_________________
We are on our way back...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:29 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:18 pm
Posts: 3411
Location: East Perth, WA
grrofunger wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
Hotcox wrote:
If Austin gets a game i will put 100 bucks on the bar at 9T4 in Swan St before the Richmond game next Saturday.


Just checking my frequent flyer points.


im am actually flying over for next weekends game :lol:

ill down the 100 myself


That's because you drink beer out of a man's glass not a tiny "pot".... :thumbsup:

_________________
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Feelgood Hit of the Winter - GHRP-2, GHRP-6, CJC-1295, AOD-9604, Humanofort and Hexarelin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:30 pm 
Offline
Ken Hands
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 449
livolover wrote:
can anyone a bit closer to the club offer some thoughts on where P Bower is in terms of his career and how he is regarded by the MC ???

A relatively high draft pick who currently seems to have lost his spot in the pecking order badly????

ps. if you would have told me 18 months ago that Austin and Thornton would be playing ahead of Bower, I would have sent you to the psychiatrist !


I don't understand it either that Bower is not in the side. When he is up and about, he is a damn fine player, what's going on?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:36 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 20174
Location: 父 父 父 父 父 父
livolover wrote:
can anyone a bit closer to the club offer some thoughts on where P Bower is in terms of his career


His career is 1-2 weeks away.

_________________
Congratulations CK95


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:50 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:36 am
Posts: 8131
Austin was very good on Mooney last week in the VFL. Bower had a lesser opponent, and started well, but then drifted out of the game. The fact that Bower was sub a few weeks back indicates they wanted him available for this week's game. But his form just hasn't been good enough. Austin's has been better. (Even though I'm a Bower fan.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:51 pm 
Offline
John Nicholls

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 9099
Location: Nth Fitzroy
Siegfried wrote:
Austin must play.

I understand the match committee's focus on run, but we have been caught out a few times by opposition's tall forwards - Collingwood and Adelaide especially.

Kennedy, Lynch and Darling means we need to have 3 talls down back. One of Cox and Natanui makes it imperitive. And it's not just purely because of match ups. It's also insurance in case Thornton is getting beaten, or Henderson is down and Thornton needs to go forward, or whatever...we need the extra tall as insurance against a team with so many of them.


We chinned adelaide with run. We missed loads of shots and they got a sniff and their big guys almost got them over the line but our extra run got us the win in the end.
Collingwood got us because whoever got Watson become the target and he wasnt ready. The smallest man on the ground got us that night. Blair :mad:

Start picking guys for insurance and you rob us of our own strength - midfield dominance. They should be worried about us. They should be dropping talls so they have the numbers to match it with our onball fleet and numerous onball options and rotations.

We will strangle them and slowly grind them down before running all over them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am
Posts: 10486
:lol: ... we get it club29, take it easy mate and enjoy the ride, it's going to be a beauty!
We just want all our youngsters to get a game and play well. Hence the Aussie call to arms. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:00 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:36 am
Posts: 8131
I certainly think the extra runner has been an advantage this year, as it was last year as well. But I still don't think it's sustainable against the better clubs in the longer run. So even if we take a slightly short term 'hit', I'd still like us to be developing/adjusting to playing an extra tall. Austin in for mine.

Besides it's now or never for Austin. We need to be able to make an informed decision about whether to keep him or not. Best way to do that, is to give him some time back up at AFL level.


Last edited by Stefchook on Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:00 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24723
Location: Bondi Beach
club29 wrote:
Siegfried wrote:
Austin must play.

I understand the match committee's focus on run, but we have been caught out a few times by opposition's tall forwards - Collingwood and Adelaide especially.

Kennedy, Lynch and Darling means we need to have 3 talls down back. One of Cox and Natanui makes it imperitive. And it's not just purely because of match ups. It's also insurance in case Thornton is getting beaten, or Henderson is down and Thornton needs to go forward, or whatever...we need the extra tall as insurance against a team with so many of them.


We chinned adelaide with run. We missed loads of shots and they got a sniff and their big guys almost got them over the line but our extra run got us the win in the end.
Collingwood got us because whoever got Watson become the target and he wasnt ready. The smallest man on the ground got us that night. Blair :mad:

Start picking guys for insurance and you rob us of our own strength - midfield dominance. They should be worried about us. They should be dropping talls so they have the numbers to match it with our onball fleet and numerous onball options and rotations.

We will strangle them and slowly grind them down before running all over them.


You can still do that by having a Tall (insurance) as a SUB, and 3 rotating mids on the I/C bench.

I like your thinking club. I think you're on the money.
We have gone one less tall for more run in the backline.
Maybe the Eagles are different, and need something different, but it has worked for us so far this year.

Maybe its because our backmen in Laidler, Duigan, Russell and Gibbs (all around 190cm) are actually amazing players.

I reckon we need 3 tall backmen. Just a hunch...to cover their 4 talls.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:05 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:36 am
Posts: 8131
club29 wrote:
Collingwood got us because whoever got Watson become the target and he wasnt ready. The smallest man on the ground got us that night. Blair :mad:


True, but one of the reasons Collingwood small forwards do so much damage is because of the aerial threat of Cloke and Dawes, who draw extra defenders to help out against them. Playing the extra tall defender makes it far easier for Duigan and Laidler and Russell and Yarran, etc. to focus on and shut down the Collingwood smalls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:09 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am
Posts: 35135
Carlton hasn't lost to WCE since Chris Judd arrived. Can't see that changing this weekend.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:11 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:30 pm
Posts: 4580
Location: Blisstonia.
West Coast were also going to 'stretch' Collingwood, and were going to 'stretch' Essendon*. Never happened.

Obviously, we're not in Collingwood's league yet, but even Essendon* were able to force them to constantly bomb long by applying a strong press which eventually wore the Coasters down.

Not saying it will be a matter of just turning up, but our improvement in all facets of the game, will help overcome a few cm's in height. Adelaide did stretch us, but our pressure through the midfield for most of that game was woeful allowing them to stroll through the corridor with ease.

_________________
"They're [REDACTED]'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:57 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:36 am
Posts: 8131
Blueboy74 wrote:
West Coast were also going to 'stretch' Collingwood. Never happened.


And never was going to happen. Ben Reid (195cm), Chris Tarrant (193), Nick Maxwell (193), Alan Toovey (189), Harry O'Brien (188 and a big body). Collingwood's defence is not only blisteringly quick. It's also very tall. It's one of the reasons why they're so hard to beat.

By comparison, in defence we currently have Jamison (193cm), Thornton (192), Gibbs (188), Russell (188), Tuohy (187), Duigan (186). Not saying West Coast would beat us, but they can certainly stretch us without the extra tall. I think Austin (193) will play as our 2nd tall defender, allowing Thornton to play the 3rd tall defender role he's better suited to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:01 am 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Posts: 1508
MPH78 wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
Just listened to Daniel Kerr on 6PR.

I realise you can't put to much stock in what they say, but he was very upbeat about their chances. They have set themselves for this game.

Not a bad interview TBH, steered clear of 50% of the cliche's.


Heard the interview as well. While he did give us our due ('probably the form side of the comp right now'), it was quite clear that they are looking forward to the game and fancy their chances ('can't wait to get over there and have a crack at the Blues').

I hope to God we take care of business. It'll be hell over here if we lose.

Nothing worse than gloating eagles fans and piss poor press in the West Australian.
Bring home that bacon in large, gratifying chunks please lads.

_________________
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:04 am 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Posts: 1508
Stefchook wrote:
Blueboy74 wrote:
West Coast were also going to 'stretch' Collingwood. Never happened.


And never was going to happen. Ben Reid (195cm), Chris Tarrant (193), Nick Maxwell (193), Alan Toovey (189), Harry O'Brien (188 and a big body). Collingwood's defence is not only blisteringly quick. It's also very tall. It's one of the reasons why they're so hard to beat.

By comparison, in defence we currently have Jamison (193cm), Thornton (192), Gibbs (188), Russell (188), Tuohy (187), Duigan (186). Not saying West Coast would beat us, but they can certainly stretch us without the extra tall. I think Austin (193) will play as our 2nd tall defender, allowing Thornton to play the 3rd tall defender role he's better suited to.

Couple of years we'll hopefully have Watson(195) and McCarthy(196) contributing to that list. Nice

_________________
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:31 am 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:15 am
Posts: 3175
Location: The Wild West
yibbida wrote:
grrofunger wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
Just checking my frequent flyer points.


im am actually flying over for next weekends game :lol:

ill down the 100 myself


That's because you drink beer out of a man's glass not a tiny "pot".... :thumbsup:


:roll:

Piss off Yibbida you tryhard West Aussie!! :mad:

Pots rule and you know it!!


















:thumbsup:

_________________
"If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself" - Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:36 am
Posts: 8131
mikeychook wrote:
Stefchook wrote:
Blueboy74 wrote:
West Coast were also going to 'stretch' Collingwood. Never happened.


And never was going to happen. Ben Reid (195cm), Chris Tarrant (193), Nick Maxwell (193), Alan Toovey (189), Harry O'Brien (188 and a big body). Collingwood's defence is not only blisteringly quick. It's also very tall. It's one of the reasons why they're so hard to beat.

By comparison, in defence we currently have Jamison (193cm), Thornton (192), Gibbs (188), Russell (188), Tuohy (187), Duigan (186). Not saying West Coast would beat us, but they can certainly stretch us without the extra tall. I think Austin (193) will play as our 2nd tall defender, allowing Thornton to play the 3rd tall defender role he's better suited to.

Couple of years we'll hopefully have Watson(195) and McCarthy(196) contributing to that list. Nice


Yeah, it'll really add to the balance of our defensive group when we can get at least one of our new guys up and running. :thumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:29 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:12 pm
Posts: 4426
club29 wrote:
Siegfried wrote:
Austin must play.

I understand the match committee's focus on run, but we have been caught out a few times by opposition's tall forwards - Collingwood and Adelaide especially.

Kennedy, Lynch and Darling means we need to have 3 talls down back. One of Cox and Natanui makes it imperitive. And it's not just purely because of match ups. It's also insurance in case Thornton is getting beaten, or Henderson is down and Thornton needs to go forward, or whatever...we need the extra tall as insurance against a team with so many of them.


We chinned adelaide with run. We missed loads of shots and they got a sniff and their big guys almost got them over the line but our extra run got us the win in the end.
Collingwood got us because whoever got Watson become the target and he wasnt ready. The smallest man on the ground got us that night. Blair :mad:

Start picking guys for insurance and you rob us of our own strength - midfield dominance. They should be worried about us. They should be dropping talls so they have the numbers to match it with our onball fleet and numerous onball options and rotations.

We will strangle them and slowly grind them down before running all over them.

I agree. Armfield a much better option.

_________________
"Truth, for the tyrants, is the most terrible and cruel of all bindings; it is like an incandescent iron falling across their chests. And it is even more agonizing than hot iron, for that only burns the flesh, while truth burns its way into the soul"     — Lauro Aguirre


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:42 am 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:43 am
Posts: 5175
Location: Corner of Queen and Collins
It's a good debate around the team balance; really enjoying it. On one hand we've won a number of games with the clear benefit of extra run and pressure.

I just go back to our Collingwood game. To me we were short one tall in the forward line - our main structure seemed to be to kcik to the fast break and rely on jeffy or Eddie. With our main tall forward sucked up to HB at times our only other tall was Hammer and that wasn't working that well. We tried Thornton in defence and attack and in attack to his credit he ran hard to create space but it was mainly on the wing and our I50 entries in H2 were lucky. Now a lot has happened since then, but it may be that we run the guantlet on team selection for this point on an opponent by opponent basis.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 521 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 76 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group