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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.