TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Let's not Rewrite History with a Youth Policy-

Ratten's interview would give you the impression that we have not given youth a go this year. I totally disagree with that proposition. There is no Messiah at Carlton: Dick Pratt, Swan, Ratten, or Voss. Whether the young players have been coached correctly is a whole other issue but Pagan played the kids. I think Ratten will do well but our supporters should not get a sense of false hope just because we play another 3 or 4 kids. It is 3 to 5 years before we are a finals side, its inevitable that we face some more beatings. Success needs to be measured by spirited performance and gradual improvement. Forget quick fixes. Expecting quick results will only create "an eat our own culture" where we constantly look for scapegoats when we do not get the results. Only when talent is given experience under top management using the best facilities will success be generated. Unfortunately time is our greatest obstacle.

At the start of the year players like JK and JR were given a lot of game time and were kept in the side when it can be argued that they should have been dropped. It is a bit of a myth that young players weren't given a go.

Killpies I agree with your reply. I think the excitement will come from seeing more youth given a go. But remeber everyone, they will be given a go at the expense of someone else!

Pagan's idea of a youth policy was giving game time to a player called Young. :oops:

Its an interesting issue with a few important points:

1 Overall games played by kids
2 Time on ground when selected and
3 Potential games kids could have played by displacing others

The games played show that under 1) there has been an increase in games played by kids at Carlton in 2007. Im tracking this for a Blueseum article but a number of kids (who ive defined as those who played <20 games as at the start of the year) have been given a game this year.

Added to that is that for the first time in a while, Pagan didn't have his go-tos that would come in on a merry go around of ins and outs. In 2005 - 2006 this was Sporn, Prenders, Teague, Livo, Longmuir, Chambers. I think our inability to bite the bullet on the list has been a weakness, but thats a point for another thread. We entered 2007 without many of these players and as such, we created opportunities for younger guys to get a game. This was a good thing.

The listing of JR and JK as 2 guys who benefitted from this is also a good thing. A solid run of games to show something, with JR in particular getting game time, was a good move.

On the flip side the ins then out of Kennedy (brought back 1 game), Hartlett and Grigg (1 game in then out) looked very poor. Jacko was unfortunatley injured early.

2 Time on ground
This is a battle between easing players in and letting them impact on games. My view is that we've failed generally on this throughout 2007. Yes JK got some games (7 in a row) but in how many was he on the field for 50% of the game?

3 Potential other games
This is the crux of it. yes we have played more kids than in 2007 but could we have done better? Of course we could. What did we hope to achieve in 2007? Finals footy? Why werent we setting out to develop more players with real game time / exposure? Aisake could have been played earlier, Hartlett could have had more games, Grigg could have been played pre-injury, Edwards could have got a game early in the year (before his form went missing)...I just think there was a mindset to give JK and JR a go and that was the extent of the planning.

A real positive of entering 2007 was the promise of seeing the kids play more football. That's the hope created - not that we're a finals team, but that our list is moving somewhere. We don't move somewhere without rotating the kids in for blocks of time (as a minimum) to give them a taste.

BlueIce wrote:

Pagan's idea of a youth policy was giving game time to a player called Young. :oops:

Ross Young is 23 and is getting his first chance in senior football. He is the same age as Fisher, Simpson and Thornton and a year younger than Waite, Wiggins, O'hAilpin and Bannister. He gets his spot in the team based on his performances. He is certainly not too old. Robert Harvey is 36 next month. :roll:

I don't see anything in the selections this week that scream youth policy. It wouldn't suprise me if Mitchell has come in from the cold and said you couldnt pick Grigg,Edwards, Jacobs, Flint, Raso on Form. More evidence to support the scapegoating of Pagan and that talent and performance is more of an issue than the mere selection of youth

Author:	Michael Jezz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Let's not Rewrite History with a Youth Policy-
Ratten's interview would give you the impression that we have not given youth a go this year. I totally disagree with that proposition. There is no Messiah at Carlton: Dick Pratt, Swan, Ratten, or Voss. Whether the young players have been coached correctly is a whole other issue but Pagan played the kids. I think Ratten will do well but our supporters should not get a sense of false hope just because we play another 3 or 4 kids. It is 3 to 5 years before we are a finals side, its inevitable that we face some more beatings. Success needs to be measured by spirited performance and gradual improvement. Forget quick fixes. Expecting quick results will only create "an eat our own culture" where we constantly look for scapegoats when we do not get the results. Only when talent is given experience under top management using the best facilities will success be generated. Unfortunately time is our greatest obstacle.

Author:	Wojee [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Getting dragged and sitting on the bench for 3/4 of the game due to making a mistake != getting a fair crack.

Author:	killpies [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:
MJ I think the excitement is around the fact we may actually see some players get a run who havent yet. ie Edwards, Austin, Jamison, Flint, Jacobs, Grigg(well at least more than a half) before the end of the year and some time on the ground to go with it.

Author:	Rambo Stallone [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's not Rewrite History with a Youth Policy-
Michael Jezz wrote: Ratten's interview would give you the impression that we have not given youth a go this year. I totally disagree with that proposition. There is no Messiah at Carlton: Dick Pratt, Swan, Ratten, or Voss. Whether the young players have been coached correctly is a whole other issue but Pagan played the kids. I think Ratten will do well but our supporters should not get a sense of false hope just because we play another 3 or 4 kids. It is 3 to 5 years before we are a finals side, its inevitable that we face some more beatings. Success needs to be measured by spirited performance and gradual improvement. Forget quick fixes. Expecting quick results will only create "an eat our own culture" where we constantly look for scapegoats when we do not get the results. Only when talent is given experience under top management using the best facilities will success be generated. Unfortunately time is our greatest obstacle. Yep some supporters here will go ape if we haven't won a flag in 3 years after only really rebuilding from scratch since 2004. Good name Mick Jess East Freo champion,should have been a legend at Carlton and would have been , Reserves

Author:	Nicko Carstairs [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:50 am ]
Post subject:
Sorry Micheal Jezz, I disagree. I dont think the Youth have been given a proper chance. Grigg didnt get more than a quarter of playing time. Kennedy and Hartlett (until injury) had been in the reserves for a long time. I hope that a few more players in the bullants get opportunities such as Austin, Edwards, Flint and others may get at least half a game (I hope 3/4). Sh!t I don't really want another win and lose Kreuzer. But if the young players earn a win then so be it. Hey let's also play Gibbs in the midfield and Kennedy in the forward line.

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Let's not Rewrite History with a Youth Policy- http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17199	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Kouta [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:54 am ]
Post subject:
Pagan's idea of a youth policy was giving game time to a player called Young.

Author:	Butters1980 [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:39 am ]
Post subject:
Pagan's way at North was to rely on his senior core. Problem is our 'senior' core is rubbish and devoid of leadership. He has needed to give young guys big responsibilities, I mean what is the worst that can happen? We get flogged, well fine. Pagan needed to realise from the get go, there was no Carey, Stevens, Archer, Schwass, Martyn kind of group and this required a different approach, one willing to take a full punt on youth, not use them in bit roles. Rats I am sure will do this with our younger guys. Cheers ALEX

Author:	SA Blue [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:04 am ]
Post subject:
At the start of the year players like JK and JR were given a lot of game time and were kept in the side when it can be argued that they should have been dropped. It is a bit of a myth that young players weren't given a go. Killpies I agree with your reply. I think the excitement will come from seeing more youth given a go. But remeber everyone, they will be given a go at the expense of someone else!

Author:	Butters1980 [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:16 am ]
Post subject:
SA Blue wrote: At the start of the year players like JK and JR were given a lot of game time and were kept in the side when it can be argued that they should have been dropped. It is a bit of a myth that young players weren't given a go. Killpies I agree with your reply. I think the excitement will come from seeing more youth given a go. But remeber everyone, they will be given a go at the expense of someone else! You mean they wont be playing Cain Ackland?!?! Oh the humanity! Cheers ALEX

Author:	molsey [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:51 am ]
Post subject:
Its an interesting issue with a few important points: 1 Overall games played by kids 2 Time on ground when selected and 3 Potential games kids could have played by displacing others The games played show that under 1) there has been an increase in games played by kids at Carlton in 2007. Im tracking this for a Blueseum article but a number of kids (who ive defined as those who played <20 games as at the start of the year) have been given a game this year. Added to that is that for the first time in a while, Pagan didn't have his go-tos that would come in on a merry go around of ins and outs. In 2005 - 2006 this was Sporn, Prenders, Teague, Livo, Longmuir, Chambers. I think our inability to bite the bullet on the list has been a weakness, but thats a point for another thread. We entered 2007 without many of these players and as such, we created opportunities for younger guys to get a game. This was a good thing. The listing of JR and JK as 2 guys who benefitted from this is also a good thing. A solid run of games to show something, with JR in particular getting game time, was a good move. On the flip side the ins then out of Kennedy (brought back 1 game), Hartlett and Grigg (1 game in then out) looked very poor. Jacko was unfortunatley injured early. 2 Time on ground This is a battle between easing players in and letting them impact on games. My view is that we've failed generally on this throughout 2007. Yes JK got some games (7 in a row) but in how many was he on the field for 50% of the game? 3 Potential other games This is the crux of it. yes we have played more kids than in 2007 but could we have done better? Of course we could. What did we hope to achieve in 2007? Finals footy? Why werent we setting out to develop more players with real game time / exposure? Aisake could have been played earlier, Hartlett could have had more games, Grigg could have been played pre-injury, Edwards could have got a game early in the year (before his form went missing)...I just think there was a mindset to give JK and JR a go and that was the extent of the planning. A real positive of entering 2007 was the promise of seeing the kids play more football. That's the hope created - not that we're a finals team, but that our list is moving somewhere. We don't move somewhere without rotating the kids in for blocks of time (as a minimum) to give them a taste.

Author:	malbi [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:30 am ]
Post subject:
BlueIce wrote: Pagan's idea of a youth policy was giving game time to a player called Young. Ross Young is 23 and is getting his first chance in senior football. He is the same age as Fisher, Simpson and Thornton and a year younger than Waite, Wiggins, O'hAilpin and Bannister. He gets his spot in the team based on his performances. He is certainly not too old. Robert Harvey is 36 next month.

Author:	Bluesy [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:
this idea that we can stillexpect a few more beltings is ludicrous to me.For the first half of the year we had done reasonablly well winning 4 games and been in a winning position or close in quite a few others. The players are there, sure we lack 1 or 2 stars but overall our best 22 is competitive. The beltings in my opinion is a result of other issues including lack of confidence, perhaps a lack of support for the coach, selfishness and more. If the boys play the way they can and have we will be clsoe in all 6 games. For the future we need a ruck and a couple of defenders and if we can get this sooner rather than later we will be competitive again next year and i expect move up the ladder.

Author:	Michael Jezz [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:
You can argue around the edges and say this particular player didnt get enough time but when you look at it overall Pagan played kids. Most of the kids he did not play were due to injury Grigg got straight back in after injury. Should have played a few more games but not a great cost here Hartlett- Totally been a fitness issue for two years. Edwardes- Yes worth a game early in the season but no form for 10 weeks Flint- Give him a go but no way does he deserve a spot on form. Andersen was a better bet. Aisakie- Have to agree. Jacobs/Austin- Only warrant a game now. Their last 3 weeks have been good. To my reckoning Aisakie & Edwardes a little unlucky. Pity about Griggs injury. Otherwise: Russel, Gibbs, Hartlett, Kennedy, Anderson, Bower, Setanta & Murphy all have had a good go. I am more about players performing and taking responsibility. Also you play well you get more game time. To my memory the young Harmes, Buckley, Johnston, Sheldon, Ratten etc played better. and even some of them JB for one took a couple of years to get going. I just do not believe this Youth thing is a panacea for all our problems. It is more performance level of the kids thats the issue. molsey wrote: Its an interesting issue with a few important points: 1 Overall games played by kids 2 Time on ground when selected and 3 Potential games kids could have played by displacing others The games played show that under 1) there has been an increase in games played by kids at Carlton in 2007. Im tracking this for a Blueseum article but a number of kids (who ive defined as those who played <20 games as at the start of the year) have been given a game this year. Added to that is that for the first time in a while, Pagan didn't have his go-tos that would come in on a merry go around of ins and outs. In 2005 - 2006 this was Sporn, Prenders, Teague, Livo, Longmuir, Chambers. I think our inability to bite the bullet on the list has been a weakness, but thats a point for another thread. We entered 2007 without many of these players and as such, we created opportunities for younger guys to get a game. This was a good thing. The listing of JR and JK as 2 guys who benefitted from this is also a good thing. A solid run of games to show something, with JR in particular getting game time, was a good move. On the flip side the ins then out of Kennedy (brought back 1 game), Hartlett and Grigg (1 game in then out) looked very poor. Jacko was unfortunatley injured early. 2 Time on ground This is a battle between easing players in and letting them impact on games. My view is that we've failed generally on this throughout 2007. Yes JK got some games (7 in a row) but in how many was he on the field for 50% of the game? 3 Potential other games This is the crux of it. yes we have played more kids than in 2007 but could we have done better? Of course we could. What did we hope to achieve in 2007? Finals footy? Why werent we setting out to develop more players with real game time / exposure? Aisake could have been played earlier, Hartlett could have had more games, Grigg could have been played pre-injury, Edwards could have got a game early in the year (before his form went missing)...I just think there was a mindset to give JK and JR a go and that was the extent of the planning. A real positive of entering 2007 was the promise of seeing the kids play more football. That's the hope created - not that we're a finals team, but that our list is moving somewhere. We don't move somewhere without rotating the kids in for blocks of time (as a minimum) to give them a taste.

Author:	molsey [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Im not arguing around the edges. In 2007 Pagan didn't have his go-tos to some extent he had to play some kids - he had no other option. I think he could have and should have done far better. What was he trying to do in 2007? What was he trying to do in 2006? Why were guys getting games at the expense of trying to give the kids a go in the seniors? I hear the echo of 'we dont rebuild at Carlton' in his team selections. Murphy had a good go because he immediately became one of our best players. As above, Rusty and kennedy were treated well at the start, and both deserved to get dropped. Anderson was a welcome surprise story and I was very happy with his selection and games. Bower, Hartlett, Grigg, Edwards, Aisake have all been unlucky in my view. I just go back to 'What was the plan in 2007?' It seems to have been to give them extended time at the Bullants. Maybe Im just impatient because for so long we haven't had the kids coming through, and in 2007 I expected more. I expected youth to be embraced but until now I don't think they have been. I agree that youth isnt a panacea in itself, but would ask where our future is coming from if we don't embrace it.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	linchpin [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
I wonder what he would of said when the question was asked..... How do you plan on tackling 2008?

Author:	George Harris [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:
malleefowl wrote: BlueIce wrote: Pagan's idea of a youth policy was giving game time to a player called Young. Ross Young is 23 and is getting his first chance in senior football. He is the same age as Fisher, Simpson and Thornton and a year younger than Waite, Wiggins, O'hAilpin and Bannister. He gets his spot in the team based on his performances. He is certainly not too old. Robert Harvey is 36 next month. I think someone missed the joke.

Author:	Michael Jezz [ Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't see anything in the selections this week that scream youth policy. It wouldn't suprise me if Mitchell has come in from the cold and said you couldnt pick Grigg,Edwards, Jacobs, Flint, Raso on Form. More evidence to support the scapegoating of Pagan and that talent and performance is more of an issue than the mere selection of youth

Author:	bluetongue [ Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Michael Jezz wrote: I don't see anything in the selections this week that scream youth policy. It wouldn't suprise me if Mitchell has come in from the cold and said you couldnt pick Grigg,Edwards, Jacobs, Flint, Raso on Form. More evidence to support the scapegoating of Pagan and that talent and performance is more of an issue than the mere selection of youth So you're saying that your assumption supports your opinion? Hold on, I'll call the papers.