And what has Josh Fraser demonstrated to show he would be better? Is our forward line playing any better, Braithy? We can't just jump at someone because they're available. Harry and Kemp refuse to lead and prefer to hang out the back looking for the easy ball.
The game has changed but the fundamentals haven't. Forward handball and high metres gained by hand only come from winning the ball.
The formula of contested footy and controlling the stoppage is still a key. Jack Steele was interviewed after the game and the Demons had written on their board at half time how Carlton have been losing the contest and the scoreboard after half time. They're tied together. If you have the ball, the opposition don't.

In the first quarter we outscored Melbourne 5.0 to zero from stoppage. Because we won the ball and controlled it. We had 22 inside 50's to 5 and took 8 marks inside 50. Cripps had 5 clearances in a quarter.

Even at half time we led centre clearances 6-1 and stoppage clearances 15-12. Contested possessions we led 71-62 and Cripps had 7 clearances and we led by 34 points.

What changed and what has consistently changed? We proceed to lose the contest and the clearances. In first halves this year we've won the contested possessions by an average of 20 per game. We've led each game easily. In the second half we lose it by an average of 6 and we fall to pieces.
Look at this match. We have centre bounce stoppage ascendancy in the first half (6-1) and dominate the match. In the second half Melbourne win the centre clearances 10-5, stoppage clearances 17-14 and we lose the contested possessions. It's the same in every game.
Clubs are not beating us by being different, they're beating us at our own game.

When we control the stoppages and the centre bounce, we have forward metres gained by handball as good as anyone. But we can't sustain it. Why? How can Patrick Cripps have 7 clearances at half time and only 2 more for the match? He's not a good enough player that we can carry him in other roles.

Yes our midfield is slow but it has its strength. There isn't a logical reason why we stop at half time other than its in the players heads. The strategy works well when the players commit to it. Massive first half leads show that. But it stops dead.
It can't be fitness. There's very little in difference between AFL teams IMO. Some posters say it's taxing game plan. It's no more taxing than the opposition chasing arse in the first half. When it's all said and done, it's 4 players v 4 players in centre bounces. There's little strategy, no extra numbers, it's one on one. Talent V talent.
And for whatever reason our players are superman for the first 45 minutes and become impotent head cases after that.

Not having a decent second ruck doesn't help. HOK is a liability in the 3rd quarter and Reidy hasn't shown himself to be much better. We need an ultra aggressive big man ASAP. I think we're seeing why Agresta was moved on and why Austin might be on thin ice. To have no decent second ruck, no decent 2nd key defender and no decent 2nd tall forward (or No.1 tall forward) with virtually zero injuries is a massive concern.

IMHO, the system works. We need a psychologist more than a coach.

And what has Josh Fraser demonstrated to show he would be better? Is our forward line playing any better, Braithy? We can't just jump at someone because they're available. Harry and Kemp refuse to lead and prefer to hang out the back looking for the easy ball.
The game has changed but the fundamentals haven't. Forward handball and high metres gained by hand only come from winning the ball.
The formula of contested footy and controlling the stoppage is still a key. Jack Steele was interviewed after the game and the Demons had written on their board at half time how Carlton have been losing the contest and the scoreboard after half time. They're tied together. If you have the ball, the opposition don't.

In the first quarter we outscored Melbourne 5.0 to zero from stoppage. Because we won the ball and controlled it. We had 22 inside 50's to 5 and took 8 marks inside 50. Cripps had 5 clearances in a quarter.

Even at half time we led centre clearances 6-1 and stoppage clearances 15-12. Contested possessions we led 71-62 and Cripps had 7 clearances and we led by 34 points.

What changed and what has consistently changed? We proceed to lose the contest and the clearances. In first halves this year we've won the contested possessions by an average of 20 per game. We've led each game easily. In the second half we lose it by an average of 6 and we fall to pieces.
Look at this match. We have centre bounce stoppage ascendancy in the first half (6-1) and dominate the match. In the second half Melbourne win the centre clearances 10-5, stoppage clearances 17-14 and we lose the contested possessions. It's the same in every game.
Clubs are not beating us by being different, they're beating us at our own game.

When we control the stoppages and the centre bounce, we have forward metres gained by handball as good as anyone. But we can't sustain it. Why? How can Patrick Cripps have 7 clearances at half time and only 2 more for the match? He's not a good enough player that we can carry him in other roles.

Yes our midfield is slow but it has its strength. There isn't a logical reason why we stop at half time other than its in the players heads. The strategy works well when the players commit to it. Massive first half leads show that. But it stops dead.
It can't be fitness. There's very little in difference between AFL teams IMO. Some posters say it's taxing game plan. It's no more taxing than the opposition chasing arse in the first half. When it's all said and done, it's 4 players v 4 players in centre bounces. There's little strategy, no extra numbers, it's one on one. Talent V talent.
And for whatever reason our players are superman for the first 45 minutes and become impotent head cases after that.

Not having a decent second ruck doesn't help. HOK is a liability in the 3rd quarter and Reidy hasn't shown himself to be much better. We need an ultra aggressive big man ASAP. I think we're seeing why Agresta was moved on and why Austin might be on thin ice. To have no decent second ruck, no decent 2nd key defender and no decent 2nd tall forward (or No.1 tall forward) with virtually zero injuries is a massive concern.

IMHO, the system works. We need a psychologist more than a coach.

We completely revamped our coaching staff over the summer though.

Sent from my moto g54 5G using Tapatalk

don't shoot the messenger mate - re josh fraser named interim. it's just what went around on a group chat i'm in. there's a couple of ex players, current afl assistant coaches, some AFL fitness people & consultants a part of it, and someone from the blues too - although they don't say much anymore ever since GW came on board.

it's usually pretty good for inside info, but not gospel.


like last season voss was 100% gone at EOS when wright got signed in. but the coach he wanted said no, so that fortune cookie wasn't entirely correct.

I can't really work out your point keogh. You're saying it was good that o'niel & gale got around dimma & gave him new assistants. But when we do the same, people higher up than the coach shouldn't be sticking their nose in things?

From where I sit Voss has been given every resource & opportunity for one last go at it in 2026. Davies, Simpson, new line coaches. Who knows if it'll work but for once, we didn't sack the coach.

Sent from my moto g54 5G using Tapatalk

And what has Josh Fraser demonstrated to show he would be better? Is our forward line playing any better, Braithy? We can't just jump at someone because they're available. Harry and Kemp refuse to lead and prefer to hang out the back looking for the easy ball.
The game has changed but the fundamentals haven't. Forward handball and high metres gained by hand only come from winning the ball.
The formula of contested footy and controlling the stoppage is still a key. Jack Steele was interviewed after the game and the Demons had written on their board at half time how Carlton have been losing the contest and the scoreboard after half time. They're tied together. If you have the ball, the opposition don't.

In the first quarter we outscored Melbourne 5.0 to zero from stoppage. Because we won the ball and controlled it. We had 22 inside 50's to 5 and took 8 marks inside 50. Cripps had 5 clearances in a quarter.

Even at half time we led centre clearances 6-1 and stoppage clearances 15-12. Contested possessions we led 71-62 and Cripps had 7 clearances and we led by 34 points.

What changed and what has consistently changed? We proceed to lose the contest and the clearances. In first halves this year we've won the contested possessions by an average of 20 per game. We've led each game easily. In the second half we lose it by an average of 6 and we fall to pieces.
Look at this match. We have centre bounce stoppage ascendancy in the first half (6-1) and dominate the match. In the second half Melbourne win the centre clearances 10-5, stoppage clearances 17-14 and we lose the contested possessions. It's the same in every game.
Clubs are not beating us by being different, they're beating us at our own game.

When we control the stoppages and the centre bounce, we have forward metres gained by handball as good as anyone. But we can't sustain it. Why? How can Patrick Cripps have 7 clearances at half time and only 2 more for the match? He's not a good enough player that we can carry him in other roles.

Yes our midfield is slow but it has its strength. There isn't a logical reason why we stop at half time other than its in the players heads. The strategy works well when the players commit to it. Massive first half leads show that. But it stops dead.
It can't be fitness. There's very little in difference between AFL teams IMO. Some posters say it's taxing game plan. It's no more taxing than the opposition chasing arse in the first half. When it's all said and done, it's 4 players v 4 players in centre bounces. There's little strategy, no extra numbers, it's one on one. Talent V talent.
And for whatever reason our players are superman for the first 45 minutes and become impotent head cases after that.

Not having a decent second ruck doesn't help. HOK is a liability in the 3rd quarter and Reidy hasn't shown himself to be much better. We need an ultra aggressive big man ASAP. I think we're seeing why Agresta was moved on and why Austin might be on thin ice. To have no decent second ruck, no decent 2nd key defender and no decent 2nd tall forward (or No.1 tall forward) with virtually zero injuries is a massive concern.

IMHO, the system works. We need a psychologist more than a coach.

But fair points keogh

I don't fully agree with you about Williams though. He's very blunt in the way he speaks, & that's not a bad thing for a club as messy as ours.

For the better part of a decade, the club have fundamentally misread the evolution of the modern game, persisting with a list strategy built around big-bodied, bash-and-crash midfielders as if it were still 1985. There was a time when that contested, stoppage-heavy approach had merit, but the game has clearly shifted toward speed, spread, skill, and decision-making under pressure - and Carlton have been slow, if not unwilling, to adapt. It's reached its zenith in 2026 and we've been found out.

Instead, they’ve doubled down on a blueprint that no longer consistently stacks up against the league’s best. And while many will point to coaching or injuries, it’s hard to ignore what appears to be a deeper issue in list management philosophy. Nothing against Nick Austin, but at times, it feels like you could hand the role to a well-trained algorithm and get a more balanced, future-proof list outcome.

Totally agree with which comes back to the governance of the board once again
You have a group of people who are the most important influential people at the club and they can’t guide the club in the right direction
No football acumen
You have to have a knowledge of football and how it continually evolves