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 Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:54 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 ... 108  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:10 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:09 pm
Posts: 5826
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
aboynamedsue wrote:
I wouldn’t want our match committee selecting the team in such a contrived manner.


How is it any more or less contrived than picking a rookie late in the year who may not be in our best 22 but keen to see how he goes, from a list management perspective, rather than merit?

Should we be never resting players? Or never blooding players to give them extra experience?

Blooding young players and managing sore ones is intended as an investment in the future. How is that in anyway similar to picking a (struggling) 30 year old in round 18 for no other reason than he has 6 games to get to 100?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 1383
Two reasons

One being the obvious with father/son eligibility, the second just being a glaring example of how we failed to learn our lessons with how Fisher missing out one game shy impacted the playing group.

Given the discontent amongst the players at the time about him not getting an opportunity to play his 100th, you could make an argument that it was the beginning of the end for Ratten. Do I suspect that it would have a similar impact on this playing group? Without suggesting any unpopularity on Rowe's behalf, probably not, but it could have had a similar impact on morale in a year we've struggled for it at times.

He's played in one of the shittest Carlton sides of all time, and had more than his fair share of bags kicked on him in that time. Not the greatest player, but a slight tip of the hat would have been warranted in matches we had nothing to play for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:48 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:09 pm
Posts: 5826
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
Two reasons

One being the obvious with father/son eligibility, the second just being a glaring example of how we failed to learn our lessons with how Fisher missing out one game shy impacted the playing group.

Given the discontent amongst the players at the time about him not getting an opportunity to play his 100th, you could make an argument that it was the beginning of the end for Ratten. Do I suspect that it would have a similar impact on this playing group? Without suggesting any unpopularity on Rowe's behalf, probably not, but it could have had a similar impact on morale in a year we've struggled for it at times.

He's played in one of the shittest Carlton sides of all time, and had more than his fair share of bags kicked on him in that time. Not the greatest player, but a slight tip of the hat would have been warranted in matches we had nothing to play for.

If our playing group is that impacted by a player not being gifted enough games to get him to a 100, then we are going nowhere.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:05 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 4435
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
Two reasons

One being the obvious with father/son eligibility, the second just being a glaring example of how we failed to learn our lessons with how Fisher missing out one game shy impacted the playing group.

Given the discontent amongst the players at the time about him not getting an opportunity to play his 100th, you could make an argument that it was the beginning of the end for Ratten. Do I suspect that it would have a similar impact on this playing group? Without suggesting any unpopularity on Rowe's behalf, probably not, but it could have had a similar impact on morale in a year we've struggled for it at times.

He's played in one of the shittest Carlton sides of all time, and had more than his fair share of bags kicked on him in that time. Not the greatest player, but a slight tip of the hat would have been warranted in matches we had nothing to play for.


I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.
He had a good journey and as it turns out was a game short.
You don't gift games.
Team comes first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 1383
What exactly came first?

We were shit. The whole season. Was there really that big a case to be made for not giving Liam Jones a rest with a mysterious calf injury? Or another one on top of the numerous weeks on the side of precaution for Weitering?

A side that got pumped by 80 odd points, and we're quibbling over the team first mantra that it clearly had no bearing on, nor solidified in anyway?

We gifted games to about half a dozen players this year who won't be considered for a microsecond by other recruiters this year for a second chance. We gifted O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw etc games because we didn't want to throw kids in the deep end. Ridiculous picking and choosing when a game is deserved and when it isn't, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 22924
Location: Bondi Beach
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
Two reasons

One being the obvious with father/son eligibility, the second just being a glaring example of how we failed to learn our lessons with how Fisher missing out one game shy impacted the playing group.

Given the discontent amongst the players at the time about him not getting an opportunity to play his 100th, you could make an argument that it was the beginning of the end for Ratten. Do I suspect that it would have a similar impact on this playing group? Without suggesting any unpopularity on Rowe's behalf, probably not, but it could have had a similar impact on morale in a year we've struggled for it at times.

He's played in one of the shittest Carlton sides of all time, and had more than his fair share of bags kicked on him in that time. Not the greatest player, but a slight tip of the hat would have been warranted in matches we had nothing to play for.


I know where you are coming from.

I can't believe the situation for Rowe is anything like Fisher's was with his coach.
Rowe might be happy to take a role at Doncaster East. He's planned it imo.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:23 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 1383
I don't believe it is either. But would have preferred the club learned from the experience, and erred on the side of caution as a result.

Doesn't make us any more ruthless, or calculating, or cold, or games earned any more or less, because we played some absolute duds, we played blokes in the 4 weeks after as we only had about 24 to choose from. Some of them were probably given games in hindsight with SOS having already put a red pen through their name on the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 4435
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
What exactly came first?

We were shit. The whole season. Was there really that big a case to be made for not giving Liam Jones a rest with a mysterious calf injury? Or another one on top of the numerous weeks on the side of precaution for Weitering?

A side that got pumped by 80 odd points, and we're quibbling over the team first mantra that it clearly had no bearing on, nor solidified in anyway?

We gifted games to about half a dozen players this year who won't be considered for a microsecond by other recruiters this year for a second chance. We gifted O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw etc games because we didn't want to throw kids in the deep end. Ridiculous picking and choosing when a game is deserved and when it isn't, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us.


You know the reasons the club did what they did, do you?
You know better than the club, do you?

Seriously, get your hand off it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:37 pm 
Offline
Bob Chitty

Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:40 pm
Posts: 836
verbs wrote:
Across the senior list and rookie list now, our average age is below 24. That's a pretty young list if we are to add a further three 18 year olds.


take out simmo, muphy, kruezer and ed and that average would drop even more.

its going to be another tough year, but i am convinced we are building something special.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 1383
Paddycripps wrote:
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
What exactly came first?

We were shit. The whole season. Was there really that big a case to be made for not giving Liam Jones a rest with a mysterious calf injury? Or another one on top of the numerous weeks on the side of precaution for Weitering?

A side that got pumped by 80 odd points, and we're quibbling over the team first mantra that it clearly had no bearing on, nor solidified in anyway?

We gifted games to about half a dozen players this year who won't be considered for a microsecond by other recruiters this year for a second chance. We gifted O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw etc games because we didn't want to throw kids in the deep end. Ridiculous picking and choosing when a game is deserved and when it isn't, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us.


You know the reasons the club did what they did, do you?
You know better than the club, do you?

Seriously, get your hand off it.


I think if the club would have their time again, they'd have given Fish his 100th game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:43 pm 
Offline
Vale 1953-2020
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am
Posts: 11671
I don't care what you say about the other three, but you shouldn't roast Lamb.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

_________________
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F .........
Visit http://fromthemoshpit.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:43 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 1277
Location: Perth
Fisher I agree with. It would have been 100 games for Carlton. Imagine if he'd had a kid that was an absolute gun. Isn't Rowe's 100 across 2 club Said? In that case I don't really care that we didn't get him to 100.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:51 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 3581
verbs wrote:
So far allthe ins for the Silvagni era:

STILL ON LIST BUT ON THIN ICE
Phillips
LeBois

Pickett
Polson
Garlett
Lang

Would all want to show improvement in 2019 if they want to be around in 2020.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:34 am 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 5990
Location: Melbourne
toddkurnski wrote:
verbs wrote:
So far allthe ins for the Silvagni era:

STILL ON LIST BUT ON THIN ICE
Phillips
LeBois

Pickett
Polson
Garlett
Lang

Would all want to show improvement in 2019 if they want to be around in 2020.


Ill guess at least 2 will be gone from those.

In order of most likely to least likely to be gone:

Polson
Garlett
Pickett
Lang


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:27 am 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:16 pm
Posts: 337
steve wrote:
Fisher I agree with. It would have been 100 games for Carlton. Imagine if he'd had a kid that was an absolute gun. Isn't Rowe's 100 across 2 club Said? In that case I don't really care that we didn't get him to 100.

All games with carlton, he didn’t get a game with Sydney
So he is one short of father son eligibility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:55 am 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24282
Location: Kaloyasena
moshe25 wrote:
I don't care what you say about the other three, but you shouldn't roast Lamb.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk




I think this is becoming a “circular” argument.


:lol:

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:49 am 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:42 pm
Posts: 2798
I think delisting the 4 gives SOS flexibility if he does get a godfather offer for pick 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:54 am 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am
Posts: 10060
Great points RSG. Couldn’t agree more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:30 am 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 3844
Location: Canberra Town!
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
Paddycripps wrote:
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
What exactly came first?

We were shit. The whole season. Was there really that big a case to be made for not giving Liam Jones a rest with a mysterious calf injury? Or another one on top of the numerous weeks on the side of precaution for Weitering?

A side that got pumped by 80 odd points, and we're quibbling over the team first mantra that it clearly had no bearing on, nor solidified in anyway?

We gifted games to about half a dozen players this year who won't be considered for a microsecond by other recruiters this year for a second chance. We gifted O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw etc games because we didn't want to throw kids in the deep end. Ridiculous picking and choosing when a game is deserved and when it isn't, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us.


You know the reasons the club did what they did, do you?
You know better than the club, do you?

Seriously, get your hand off it.


I think if the club would have their time again, they'd have given Fish his 100th game.


hindsight is 20/20.

Its always cruel and unfortunate to see a player stranded on 99 games, but both Fish and Rowe were robbed of getting their name's on the locker when the knees gave way and the lost a full season of games.

If he was stuck in the twos on 99 games - maybe I can see your argument - a farewell match and 100th might have been nice, but arguing about him being dropped with a month of the season to spare is a long bow if you ask me.

I doubt its going to be the catalyst for Bolton's demise either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline
Rod McGregor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:36 am
Posts: 185
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
aboynamedsue wrote:
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
BigKev wrote:
Paddycripps wrote:
All makes sense. Feel for Sam Rowe though on 99. Mind you it'll be a nice ice breaker at dinner parties for him.


And it's not like Fisher, (who should've got the extra game). You're not going to give a guy a whole extra season for one game.


They dropped him for one game late in the year and brought him back next week. Ridiculous.

Not a fan of merit based selection?


In the context of it being Rd 18, and it making very little difference, it would have been a nice bit of forward planning (as it would have been with Brad Fisher). His cards were marked around then, as was our season, may as well have gotten something out of that game. With Roughead/Gunston/Ceglar/Schoenmakers all playing that day, not like there wasn't a match up for him either.


So with six weeks to go in the season you'd like someone to inform the match committee that Rowe is currently on 94 games and if he plays the rest he'll get to 100, meaning that in the off chance he has a son, we can draft him in 20-odd years? What about Graham being stranded on 48? Surely we could have planned ahead for him to get a nice banner too.

It's unfortunate for Sam but that's just the way it worked out.

_________________
Audere est Facere


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 ... 108  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 59 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