Navy inquiry

BigBlueWave · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm **Posts:** 3073

The article does not explain why we were so good early ... thrashing both Geelong and StKilda. If the points they made are valid now ... were they still valid earlier ... if not ... how did we win back then. What went wrong?

Now that would have been a more interesting article ... unfortunately they have taken the easy approach.

Not great Journalism.

cimm1979 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:38 pm

Koutamagic wrote:

agree completely with the article, especially the Judd comment.

Until Judd improves his disposals, he will not be considered elite.

granted he has not had much help from his team members and trying to take too much on himself.

He gets the ball, wins the contest, but lets the team down with his disposals.

I am still not convinced that he is as good as what everyone says he is but he is still one heck of a recruit.

Lets swap him for Collingwoods elite player, Dane Swann. That would go down a treat.

Ciccio · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:43 pm

the stats are damning. the article is excellent because there is no sugar coating. Whilst the conclusions drawn on Judd I do not agree with the evidence presented does tell us we have a problem

teams have figured out how to stop the forward line and to some degree our backline - this has been stated a few times but is absolutely the reason why we have struggled. we did have a gameplan and it worked until we played the hawks but now that we have been unravelled we are being exposed repeatedly

imagine this - you are running forward with the ball. you have been coached to bring the ball in a certain way but all you see is oppostion backmen and your forwards in the wrong place. you now have to be creative, you have a guy on your tail and no one wants the ball because they don't know what to do with it. I bet most people would struggle to be efficient with the ball in this situation. If this happens to you a few times in a game you stop believing and your work rate will go down this explains the blow outs. To lose is one thing but to get beaten by the amounts we have recently implies the team no longer believe in the structure/strategy (just ask look at Essendon*)

ratts and his panel need to make adjustments. it is easy for us to pontificate from afar but it is much harder to do in reality.

re game plan it is a) never going to stand up in finals so time to change OR b) is going to work once the players get more experience with it and hence why he is sticking with it. it will take balls if he really believes it is b) to stick with it. I, like many others, dont see it working and sadly I think the players are lacking in belief too.

Rhys26 · **Joined:** Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:12 am **Posts:** 1730

Ciccio wrote:

the stats are damning. the article is excellent because there is no sugar coating. Whilst the conclusions drawn on Judd I do not agree with the evidence presented does tell us we have a problem

teams have figured out how to stop the forward line and to some degree our backline - this has been stated a few times but is absolutely the reason why we have struggled. we did have a gameplan and it worked until we played the hawks but now that we have been unravelled we are being exposed repeatedly

imagine this - you are running forward with the ball. you have been coached to bring the ball in a certain way but all you see is oppostion backmen and your forwards in the wrong place. you now have to be creative, you have a guy on your tail and no one wants the ball because they don't know what to do with it. I bet most people would struggle to be efficient with the ball in this situation. If this happens to you a few times in a game you stop believing and your work rate will go down this explains the blow outs. To lose is one thing but to get beaten by the amounts we have recently implies the team no longer believe in the structure/strategy (just ask look at Essendon*)

ratts and his panel need to make adjustments. it is easy for us to pontificate from afar but it is much harder to do in reality.

re game plan it is a) never going to stand up in finals so time to change OR b) is going to work once the players get more experience with it and hence why he is sticking with it. it will take balls if he really believes it is b) to stick with it. I, like many others, dont see it working and sadly I think the players are lacking in belief too.

Thats an excellent summation....Post Of the Week for sure

aido · **Joined:** Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:02 pm **Posts:** 184

Heres a thought.

Why not play Walker on ball side by side with Judd.

Stop playing Grigg in a negative role and have him and Walker on either side of Judd.

Let Simpson, Yarran and Murph carry the ball.

Get lucas and Davies playing off half back.

Play Gibba, Scottland, Lucas and Davies off half back and rotating through the middle.

Teach young Hampson not to just hang out 10 meters out from goal and move a round a bit.

I'd play Thornton as a permanent forward pushing up to the wings. Same with Henderson and have Waite and Hamspon the next kick with Betts and Gartlett under them.

deano35 · **Joined:** Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:45 pm **Posts:** 1757

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/o ... 10hsz.html

At least someone knows a thing called research before putting pen to paper.
To say Judd is not in the top 10 players is plain dumb and headline seeking at best.
Remember it wasn't that long ago in our season that he was a Brownlow Favorite !!!

Mike Sheehan should do a Carro and say i was wrong.

aido · **Joined:** Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:02 pm **Posts:** 184

deano35 wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/oneman-band-20100719-10hsz.html

At least someone knows a thing called research before putting pen to paper.
To say Judd is not in the top 10 players is plain dumb and headline seeking at best.
Remember it wasn't that long ago in our season that he was a Brownlow Favorite !!!

Mike Sheehan should do a Carro and say i was wrong.

I'm pretty sure Hirdy let Mike know this on Monday night

Big Kahuna Boot · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:43 pm

woof wrote:

I think the saddest thing about of all this is that after 3 years at the club Judd is required to do more rather than less in the middle. 3 Years on and no one has put up their hand to give him a chop out on a consistent basis.

..agree 100%.. ..this is our biggest weakness in my opinion..

The_Cranium · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:24 pm

Effes wrote:

The words are bullshit but the stats in the hard copy of the article are very interesting.

RD: 1-8; 9-16
Points 20 12
Percentage 119.18 90.5
Position 5th 11th
I50 49.2 (10th) 52.5 (6th)
Marks I50 14.1 (5th) 10.5 (14th)
% Goals once I50 31.5% (2nd) 22.9% (15th)
Points for 104.9 (4th) 83.4 (12th)

The scary part of the stats above are that we've increased our number of inside 50s since the first eight games yet we're scoring less and taking less marks inside 50. Opposition coaches have worked out how to limit our scoring and it is up to the coaching staff to come up with a system when moving the ball inside 50 to increase our marks inside 50. In the first 9 games we appeared to be playing this counter attacking style where opposition defenders would be sucked up the ground to the wings and then we would use the pace of the three smaller forwards running back towards goal to score. Now these defenders are staying back in defence instead of coming up the ground. There is therefore little space for Betts, Yarran and Garlett to run into - they can't be relied on to take overhead marks yet given the numbers the opposition are putting in defence we are still going to them thinking that they can compete overhead with players who have a massive height advantage on them.

I reckon in the first 8 games we hurt teams wth an open forwardline steaming forward with kicks into space...(dare I say like a Pagan's paddock). Since the North game, everyone has worked out what we were trying to do, and as such they simply get numbers back to clog up our space. let us have our inside 50s but make sure there is no clean entries, and give our little blokes no space to use their attributes. then when we inevitably turn it over, run like buggery forward and watch us all look at each other to see who is picking who up and in the meantime kick it in to isolated one on one contest.

What the plan to stop it is, is anyone's guess. I don't know th solution, but I'm not getting paid hundred's of thousands of dollars to find the solution

The_Cranium · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:27 pm

by the way the chris judd slur is nothing short of outrageous. Let' see how many votes Juddy has from round 4 to 11. Not in the top 10. Seriously just @#$%&! off sheehan you drip..... the rest of the article is spot on

aramari · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:45 pm

The_Cranium wrote:

by the way the chris judd slur is nothing short of outrageous. Let' see how many votes Juddy has from round 4 to 11. Not in the top 10. Seriously just !@#$%& off sheehan you drip..... the rest of the article is spot on

On form, Judd isn't top 10. But you don't assess a player's status in the game on 5 matches. Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Having said that....I wasn't as taken with Judd's early season form as most.

Having said that :donk:

.... these top 10s / top 50s are a bit of a wank.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:56 pm

The_Cranium wrote:

by the way the chris judd slur is nothing short of outrageous. Let' see how many votes Juddy has from round 4 to 11. Not in the top 10. Seriously just !@#$%& off sheehan you drip..... the rest of the article is spot on

Does it really matter what any journo thinks of Judd? It's what our team does that counts.

dadadadada · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:24 pm **Posts:** 1368

wasthesonofapreacherman wrote:

But for Judd which is outrageous (he's doing everything on his own and it's grossly effecting his game), pretty spot on.

The "recruiting heading" should really be named trading. Our recruiting has been decent.

Just decent you say. After so many very early draft picks I expect to be far better than decent. Our list management and this includes trading and recruiting has been less than decent for around 15 years.

Tommy Alvin · **Joined:** Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:01 pm **Posts:** 30

Look, it's the HUN, its Sheahan and Robbo - what do you expect from the latter except grunts?
My objection is not that the personnel-directed comments don't have some merit but that there is an absolute lack of analysis of why the team is failing despite reasonable I50 stats. The comment along the lines of 'why not just bang it in long?' demonstrates that these guys just don't have a good strategic understanding of the game. Why?
1. We don't have any strong pack marks in the team - indeed, often outmarked in recent weeks.
2. The structure currently employed means that the crumbers are simply not around the spillage.
3. The majority of clubs are defensively set up for just that approach.

People may argue it's the quality of the kick into the 50, or the speed at which it occurs - something in both points - but ultimately, it comes down to how Ratten has chosen to set-up and the lack of cohesion amongst the players operating there. Yet, this gets no attention.

Given it's set up to be about things Ratten has real control over, simply highlighting players who are out of form is fairly off-point. Sure, the coach needs to be a motivator, but the stats show that, overall, we have had enough of the ball to have performed much better. Let's just hope Sheahan and Robbo aren't commissioned as analysts for the CFC's rejuvenation.

(On Judd: feel for the bloke, still think he's remarkable but criticism of his disposal is warranted. Also one of his efforts on Sunday was deplorable - his decision to snap at goal under pressure when Carrazzo was calling for the ball in space looking straight at goal. Kick fell 10m short and was marked by the opposition, Capt didn't do the team thing. Just hope the coaching staff highlight his errors as much as those of the rest.)

phoenix johnson · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:36 pm

They forgot to mention his SuperCoach average.

Koutamagic · **Joined:** Fri May 27, 2005 1:59 pm **Posts:** 126

Judd WAS elite. But his disposals and defensive pressure is no where near what an elite should be at. Once he resolves these two major deficiencies there is no doubt he will regain his number 1 mantle. But at the moment he is simply not in the top 10 players.

Pay attention to his disposals (Especially by foot) and his defensive work and you will see for yourself. Don't get me wrong still one heck of a player but his reputation precedes his true output (at the moment).

cimm1979 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:47 pm

Koutamagic wrote:

Judd WAS elite. But his disposals and defensive pressure is no where near what an elite should be at. Once he resolves these two major deficiencies there is no doubt he will regain his number 1 mantle. But at the moment he is simply not in the top 10 players.

Pay attention to his disposals (Especially by foot) and his defensive work and you will see for yourself. Don't get me wrong still one heck of a player but his reputation precedes his true output (at the moment).

Balls.

Siegfried · **Joined:** Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:30 pm **Posts:** 2864

The issue with Judd, aside from the pathetic lack of support he gets, is that when he was flying at West Coast, he was playing an outside role. Since he came to Carlton, he has had to play an inside role.

What this means is:
a) he doesn't look as exciting; and
b) every time he gets a possession, he has 3 guys hanging off him.

This is the main reason his disposal effectiveness rate has dropped. At WC, he was flying past, running through lines, and kicking when he was balanced and free. Now he is kicking in traffic with guys tackling him.

Remember when Kouta started playing the inside role. He was brilliant at it, but his impact on the game was not as great as it was when he was allowed to run, create and break lines. His ability to change a game with a 10 minute burst was diminished. Judd is similar. He can still change a game - look at his last quarter against Melbourne - but his capacity to do so is impacted upon by the role that he is asked to play.

IMHO, Ratten needs to lay down the gauntlet to Gibbs, Murphy and Co, and tell them that from now on, Judd is going to play outside, and they need to play the inside role. Gibbs has shown that he is a brilliant clearance player, why not play him in that role? Let Judd free, let him run, break lines and create. Let him deliver, free of pressure, into the forward line. Time for the others to be given, and to take, some responsibility.

As for marking forwards, Betts and Garlett need to be told that their role is to mark on the lead, or to crumb packs. Too often in the last month they (moreso Betts) have been trying to take pack marks. It's as if they know we are struggling for marking power up forward, so they are taking the onus. Good on them for trying to take up the responsibility, but it's not their role.

Mrs Caz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:41 am

Can we please stop referring to these people as journalists?

They are sportswriters, plain and simple.

bondiblue · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:03 am

Mrs Caz wrote:

Can we please stop referring to these people as journalists?

They are sportswriters, plain and simple.

Allright.

Those writing articles in the Sports Section of the papers are (as we all know): Plain and simple sports writers.

I knew that.

Navy inquiry

Who is online