Talrahir wrote:
I don't really think this should be a new thread because it does pertain to the Richmond V Carlton game but here goes.
I always find it really interesting reading everyone's proposed team. Some try and guess what the match committee will pick, while other's try and pick our best 22. But the best 22 is really subjective, even with our list, because I wonder if the poster means its our best 22 as of right now, or the best 22 based on some other criteria, like the best 22 for our future, or particular players develop etc, or the best 22 that match up against Richmond.
A couple of examples that jump to mind immediately are that A.Silvagni showed some mongrel down back and based on his performance, I would play him instead of White. Not because White's my whipping boy but based on his poor disposal, decision making and discipline in the preseason games. I don't care about the past. Players just burst out of nowhere often, and I would want to ensure everyone on the list knew that if they work hard, they will get there chance. Some, however, would argue that at 29/30 y.o., they are not the future and that we would be better playing Macreadie or Williamson, with Macreadie being a KPD and Williamson being a small rebounding defender (tall defence vs small defence depending on the opposition).
Another is the ongoing conversation about Jaksch, and how many people say he is in their best 22 despite not playing senior football for a while, and not being selected in the practice matches. He hasn't demonstrated he should be part of our best 22 but based on his reputation, where he was selected in the draft, and how much we traded for him, some select him anyway. This is most likely because the alternatives aren't any better anyway, and that the match committee seem to select other players who might be left out in other circumstances like Daisy, or White, for instance. (Incidently, KJ has been playing well in the reserves and I hope he keeps at it).
So I guess my question to all you awesome 'TalkingCarlton' posters out there who give me so much to read and digest every week (thank you sincerely, so much, I love this club), is what our Match Committee's direction should be?
If we play all the kids, they'll get monstered both physically and psychologically. But they would get games and experience quicker (the quality of those games I think would be compromised)
Do we play best player available for given match-ups (even if its A.Silvagni, or S.White) to pinch some wins throughout the year, but relegate the youth to the Bullants and slow their develop?
Or is the trick to find the balance in between? I'm really interested to read what you all think.
I think the practice matches were a reality check for most of us. I was definately in the group who thought we would put together more wins than last year. I know that seems misguided and stupid now, but my logic was that the players coming in, covered the players going out. The only exception was Tuohy. I know that kids take time to develop but Smedts, Pickett, and Marchbank aren't 18yo's, and will pick things up much faster considering they've been in the system for a bit. Smedts didn't show much in the practice matches but he might once he settles in. Pickett and Marchbank will both be upgrades on players leaving.
Marchbank takes Jamo's place who didn't play. Patrick Kerr is an upgrade on Foster who didn't play. Fisher replaces DVR who didn't play, SPS takes Whiley's place, Pickett is an upgrade on Clem Smith, Williamson takes Dick's place, Polson replaces Tutt, and even though they played different roles, you could say LeBois is a replacement for 1AW who couldn't play anymore because of his body. I could go on but it looked like what had come in, was better than what went out right away. Without any development.
If you include McKay, who didn't play at all last year, and Jack Silvagni, Cunningham, Charlie Curnow, Weitering, who will all benefit from their 2nd preseason, it looks like blue skies. Oh, and lets not forget that guy Murphy who missed half the season. He goes alright. We seemed to win a few when he was in the team. My comment to anyone who had something to say about our 2nd half of the season was to ask how their team would go without their captain. They tend to be important.
I know that the preseason matches left me feeling like a fool, but it still looks really logical. Seriously, what have we really lost from last year? Everitt in the forward line? An injured 1AW and Jammo. Probably Leadership density is about it, and that could be a reason why Bolts keeps playing Daisy. I know they have rejigged the gameplan and its either shit, and they'll change it, or the players haven't learned it properly and the first few games will iron it out.
Either way, it probably comes down to whether we have improved more or less than our opposition have. Another development year, but we ARE better than last year and we will do better than last year.
GO BLUES
Firstly I'm with you, I love reading the comments on here, even if its just to get a feel on what other Carlton supporters think, because let's be honest everyone on here loves the club and wants what best for it regardless of whether our opinions are different.
When it comes to best 22, i do who i would select if i was in charge, one main thing for me is team balance, so only having 3 key defenders, i see no reason for white or rowe or silvangi to be in the team as marchbank plowman and weitering are actually better players, i also agree it's important to have a good balance of youth and experience but with someone like daisy, i cant fathom how people think he is our best 22. In my opinion players like fisher and cunningham are already better then daisy and offer more to the team then he does.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
if Plowman isn't in the first 18
