| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| 2004 to 2005: The Season Review you didn't read http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | 2004 to 2005: The Season Review you didn't read |
Did you know that in 2005 the Blues actually had 66 more scoring shots than in 2004... all this despite: * 2004 being seen as some kind of positive year * 2005 being seen by some as a backward, negative year * many of our so called forwards playing back eg Whitnall, Lappin. Houlihan the Blues kicked 25.41 more in 2005. Only another goal a game more of course, but thats 66 shots which could have been an 3 goals per game if we could kick straight. 2004: 268 g, 217 behinds, 1825 points at 55% goal scoring accuracy (ignoring OOBOF) 2005: 293g, 258b, 2016 points at 53% goal scoring accuracy. I'll put the defence figures up later. Does this surprise anyone? |
|
| Author: | Jarusa [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah I knew that. 
Imagine how well the forward line will go when we have a decent midfield! While we are theorising, if the Fish had played all 22 games like he played his 7 this year, he would have kicked 40 goals. I reckon we already have our forward line, we need a midfield (and better KP backmen, and ... and ...)! 
|
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
no, the end of the year we played some good footy - good enough to have many people here shitting themselves about losing the P.P. and scored heavily in those games.
Like the wizard cup, I think we get glimpses of possibility, this season (for me) is about whether these possibilties can become more concrete. I like those glimpses and so still think Denis is the right man for the job because I firmly believe the list is as crappy as any that has ever been assembled. As someone said when talking of the draft, just draft the best because we have weaknesses everywhere, but for me, most notibly midfield and defence. If they can begin to be fixed I think people will see a brand of football that scores heavily and puts pressure on the opposition to do likewise. I like it too because it means we are never out of the contest - think Roos during the 90's. 'Course if the glimpses remain distant over the next two years then Denis is shit and CG was brilliant and Sheik has a sense oif humour and Mike and Dan know far more about football than the Ghost (all of these things may be true biut I box them together with the Denis is shite quadrella). |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was hoping someone would pick up those themes - not the Sheik / humour theme but the Pagan, list themes. To take the defensive numbers as well: Points Against: 2004: 328 Goals, 267 Behinds, 2235 - 55% 2005: 400 goals, 270 b, 2670, 60% An extra 72.3 were scored against us, lifting goal scoring efficiency from 55% to 60%. Midfield / defensive zones not only suffering but giving up more 'easier' goals (not going to argue bad luck, put enough pressur eon them and they'll miss) In midfield, Bentick, Simpson, Carrazzo found their way in to replace Camporeale (banished to half back and out of the Club (!)), McGrath (back pocket), Johnson etc. Also in came Whitnall to try to plug it. 1300 posts! ps Jack knows more about football than the Ghost! |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah his dad taught him well
|
|
| Author: | Chitty's Finger [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
molsey wrote: Points Against:
2004: 328 Goals, 267 Behinds, 2235 - 55% 2005: 400 goals, 270 b, 2670, 60% An extra 72.3 were scored against us, lifting goal scoring efficiency from 55% to 60%. Midfield / defensive zones not only suffering but giving up more 'easier' goals (not going to argue bad luck, put enough pressur eon them and they'll miss) Does anyone have inside defensive 50 statistics or centre clearance stuff for the 2 years to wtry and apportion blame? Its easy to say midfield / defense but can someone break it up to the 2? Its easy to blame midfield but I didn't see any of Livingston or Teague or even Thornton really killing their opposition forwards. |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Athorn the Wonderkid wrote: molsey wrote: Points Against: 2004: 328 Goals, 267 Behinds, 2235 - 55% 2005: 400 goals, 270 b, 2670, 60% An extra 72.3 were scored against us, lifting goal scoring efficiency from 55% to 60%. Midfield / defensive zones not only suffering but giving up more 'easier' goals (not going to argue bad luck, put enough pressur eon them and they'll miss) Does anyone have inside defensive 50 statistics or centre clearance stuff for the 2 years to wtry and apportion blame? Its easy to say midfield / defense but can someone break it up to the 2? Its easy to blame midfield but I didn't see any of Livingston or Teague or even Thornton really killing their opposition forwards. I still maintain that the lack of pressure and accountability in the midfield led to increased pressure in the backline and at least helps to explain the poorer seasons of Teague and Thornton. T-Bird was also injured for much of the season. A lot of the success/failure of teams in the modern game starts in the midfield. Get that right and you're well on your way to being successful. Get it wrong and it doesn't matter what you have in the backline. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think we have a shit backline. I think our midfield is better.....just. This is based on no facts no stats no desires no whispers probably not even drunken observation it might in all reality exist only in my mind still I reckon we have a shit backline. |
|
| Author: | Chitty's Finger [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: I think we have a shit backline.
I think our midfield is better.....just. I think our midfield is worse than our backline. I think with some pressure in midfield the defenders will get an even break. It's like that old Irish gag about 2 kids arguing about whose dad would win a fight between the 2. "Your Dad could beat up my Dad" "No, your Dad would beat up my Dad". Unfortunately for us the whole team gets beaten up withour midfield. But no takers on season defensive 50 entries? the herald-sin track them weekly - does this stuff get dumped anywhere? |
|
| Author: | JackWorrall [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: I think we have a shit backline.
I think our midfield is better.....just. This is based on no facts no stats no desires no whispers probably not even drunken observation it might in all reality exist only in my mind still I reckon we have a shit backline. When in other threads, virtually everyone has Luke Livingston in their best 22, that's sufficient evidence for me that we have a shit backline. |
|
| Author: | BlueJean [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
JackWorrall wrote: When in other threads, virtually everyone has Luke Livingston in their best 22, that's sufficient evidence for me that we have a shit backline. Well I'm hoping that we will soon be seeing Hartlett down back instead of maybe a Livingston... |
|
| Author: | TheBluesMuse [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: I reckon we have a shit backline. I reckon you are correct....Midfield is a problem but at least we has glimpses last year through Bentick and Simmo...Backline is just shit shit shit. Jarusa wrote: I reckon we already have our forward line, we need a midfield (and better KP backmen, and ... and ...)!
I agree. It makes me wonder why they have us picking Dowler at 4 when he has serious issues with his defensive game...the only way I can rationalise this decision is if he is certainly THE best contested mark and THE best forward KPP...then we can't really pass him up ...but they better be bloody sure because Kennedy and Ryder are, under my understanding, untapped potential. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
for me the backline problem is not one of individual players, rather it is a design problem. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: for me the backline problem is not one of individual players, rather it is a design problem.
Please explain. ps Mike & Dan are 2 buffoons who write under the mistaken belief that people will read them. I hear they are deeply upset that jokey newcomers The Fuzz have overtaken them for hits, within months of inception. It is clear on this site that all posters would prefer Ghost articles over M&D, heck, even Garrie articles over M&D, heck, even a blank piece of computer screen over M&D. pps I've never won a POW before. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
say last season it was Campo Livo Teague Whits T-Bird Lappin or Carrots T-Bird Teague Lappin Whits Houla or a combination of such for a start too small Too slow shit rebounding capability thats what i mean by design now say we could have Walker and Russell and Simmo in the back half now the speed and rebound is tyhere, add height in Saddo, Carlos or Waite or Hartlett, toss in a Mclaren or French to drop back and T-bird or Livo to grab fullback and we may have a backline. Prob is we don't know about far too many of these guys, I know that but at least the design is there. |
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: I think we have a shit backline.
probably not even drunken observation it might in all reality exist only in my mind still I reckon we have a shit backline. It started to look shit once SOS retired - but I would hazard a guess that your drunken observations may outnumber your sober ones.
|
|
| Author: | london blue [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
midfield shit? backline shit? We need ruckmen to get it down and create the big man leadership around the ground amongst our 'little kids' When Barnaby has come back from injury during the last two seasons, we have looked better. He needs back up - give Gary Dempsey as much freedom to develop as he likes to build a team of BIG Blokes that are capable. |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
BigBlind wrote: I agree. It makes me wonder why they have us picking Dowler at 4 when he has serious issues with his defensive game...the only way I can rationalise this decision is if he is certainly THE best contested mark and THE best forward KPP...then we can't really pass him up ...but they better be bloody sure because Kennedy and Ryder are, under my understanding, untapped potential.
What defensive issues does Dowler have that Kennedy and Ryder dont? |
|
| Author: | TheSheik [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Talk all you like about the quality (or lack of) our defence but you clowns are missing the most important aspect to the team overall - THE SPINE !!! We have a plethora of players decent enough to fill a pocket or flank at either end of the ground but the four key positions down the spine are huge holes that we cannot fill. Argue all you like about Thornton being CHB (yeah, right ??  ), tell me 1000 times that Fev is a true FF (sure, he can kick goals but so does Phil Matera & Steven Milne) but the sad facts are we are bereft of quality talls down the spine.
Until we address these key positions, it won't matter how good our midfield are, we will get shellacked more times than not because of it. |
|
| Author: | Chitty's Finger [ Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TheSheik wrote: Talk all you like about the quality (or lack of) our defence but you clowns are missing the most important aspect to the team overall - THE SPINE !!!
We have a plethora of players decent enough to fill a pocket or flank at either end of the ground but the four key positions down the spine are huge holes that we cannot fill. Argue all you like about Thornton being CHB (yeah, right ?? ), tell me 1000 times that Fev is a true FF (sure, he can kick goals but so does Phil Matera & Steven Milne) but the sad facts are we are bereft of quality talls down the spine. Until we address these key positions, it won't matter how good our midfield are, we will get shellacked more times than not because of it. Clowns? You're the one wearing the outfit? Hmm, sounds like an opinion there Mr.Clown. Do you have anything to back that up? The stats starting this talk about how the output from the forwards improved in 2005 and that the defence seemed to give up a lot more easy goals. How would a Centre half forward, as required udner Sheik's Spine Theory ("SST") have stopped this ceaseless goal scoring at the opposition's goalface? How does Fevola being a goalkicker affect that outcome? Seems like we'll have to agree to disagree, perhaps forever. Watching Carlton in 2005 was like the proverbial sieve from midfield. Until we get hard running accountable skilled midfielders we may never know how good or bad our defence really is. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|