Thank you Molly.

Can't always point he finger at the MC or Coach.

If all our players had performed at the level we expect them to, then yesterday would have told a different story.

Disclaimer - Exception in Judd for suffering a hit to the head by the biggest dhead in the AFL.

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.

I'm not Ratten or coaching bashing but ...

1. Hille/Laycock comprehesively destroyed Cox last week and we thought Cloke/Kruezer would handle him without Hampson.
2. We pesist with Kruezer being our second ruckman when we need another option forward and more importantly someone deep behind Fev out of the pocket.
3. We pesist with Waite @ CHB when we need a CHF! Jamison, Thornton & O'hAilpin should have been enough, the fact Lloyd beat all three has me seriously concerned now.
4. We got smashed at the clearances and centre breaks. Our 2nd and 3rd plans where disected and eradicated by Essendon* and we where crucified right there and then. We had no answer for Hille.

Really bad day in the coaches box. Sorry but them the facts in my eyes atleast.

Surrey Blue said:


1: when the season started what did you think of our ruck stocks? Young and developing would have been my answer, and that was being kind. Why does it get to mid season, and we expect our rucks to be able to beat guys like Hille, Ottens, and Charman all of a sudden? Maybe Hammer would have made a difference, maybe he wouldn't. He didn't do much against Collingwood or Port, so why would he have saved us against Essendon*? Promising young player, but its difficult to definitively say the MC got it wrong on this one.

2: Of course we need another option beside Fev. Where are they going to come from though? These guys in the Box have been here 5 minutes, and they're meant to have pulled a functioning forward line out of their ar$es. Kennedy was one answer and we traded him. Hartlett is almost always injured and hasn't shown much at senior AFL level anyway. Edwards might have been worth a shot. You've got to have the cattle to have a functioning forward line, and we haven't drafted for it. I imagine this will be rectified in November.

3: Move Waite to CHF and we'll need a CHB. It sounds like Austin is promising, so when he is ready, or when Jamison can shift there or whatever then we can move Waite forward. For the moment, necessity is the mother of invention and that means we need Waite at CHB and CHF. If the coaches shift him to CHF next week, then I'll bet you we'll have people crying here on Monday that he isn't at CHB. This is a list management issue, not a coaching issue. It's a list management issue from the years 2002-2007, and not much ratts et al can do about it. It's because some genius decided in 2003 or whenever that Lance had ten years of footy in him, or that prenda would make it or something. Can't hold a bone to Ratts because of it.

4: Getting smashed at clearances is down to the players. We've had a functioning onball unit in most matches this year... that's what demonstrates that what the guys are doing in the box is working. The fact we got smashed yesterday isn't down to them, it is down to the blokes on the field. It's down to grunt, and a will to win. If I see evidence Ratts has lost the players then I'll agree with your point... but i see only evidence to the contrary, and as such I'll point the finger of blame at the players for carrying an inflated opinion of themselves into this game.

Molly as I said not entirely Ratts fault and the majority was the players getting ahead of themselves and thinking it was just going to happen, no doubt.

The concern to me however is the fact we seem to have a game plan that rely's soley on Judd and Fev and that is it. Real concern. Through the middle Juddy was ineffective and so where we from ruck down. Fev is still our only option forward and it's round13.

We need to get smarter to move forward.

Yes Molly all well and good but why did we change from what had been winning us games. Why did we go from 350 + disposals to 300 .
We deviated from what had been winning us games and tried to take Essendon* on in a shoot out. All this talk leading up to the game was how we had learnt from the encounter in round 3 and we changed our game plan to suit - We riverted back to what lost us the game in game 3 yesterday . When it was 4 of 5 goals to nil in the first quarter why didn't they slow it down - when they hit the front in the last it was a must that we killed the ball at the centre but we took it on head on and lost and from that point on we went for the big barn storming finish and got belted out of the middle- We all new their speed and their tall forwards was their only hope of winning and we played right into their hands


Ratten was pansted yesterday

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Riley has said that they are working on the forward line options. Yeah, it isn't happening yet, but we are trying to change 6 years of habit that Fev was our only option. If it gets to this time next year and Fev remains our only option then I'll be worried.

To me the argument that our whole game relies on Fev and Judd is more a Synbad 'the sky is falling in Asterix' type argument than anything based in reality (we'll have to start calling Synners ;'Getafix' soon). Have a look at some of the articles leading into the Essendon* game... they were about how Fev had kicked 7 (or 8 or something) last time we played them, and that Judd managed 32 possessions and we still lost. Have a look at the wins in the meantime. Fair enough... fev has kicked goals in most of them, but Freo and Port were exceptions. And I'd say that in games against West Coast, Melbourne, and Collingwood (the first time) we got more cameos from Judd than anything else.

The key to all of our victories this year has been an even team performance. It is in our losses that we look Judd and Fev-centric. But that's not because we actually are... it is because the rest of the playing group has dropped their bundle and leave it up to the stars.

To say that we rely on Fev and Judd almost completely is naive. Our victories against West Coast, Collingwood (second time), Fremantle, and Port have all been games which have required us to change strategy mid-match (or late-match) to win. Often the drivers have been guys like Bentick, Gibbs, Betts, or Murphy during their rotations through the centre, or run from half back through guys like Bower, Grigg, and Russell (yes Russell). Sure... Fev has finished off the work of those guys but the driver of the comebacks has been players much further afield (and hasn't always been led by Judd).

Sydney Blue,

was Ratten pantsed yesterday or was it the playing group?

I say it was the players responsibility that meant we went from 350+ possessions to 300 yesterday. Not hard enough at it, didn't want it enough, got ahead of themselves and believed their own press.

Nah it was Ratts the message should have gone out - we thought we could run them over in the last - but we played into their hands

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

The clearances ended up being 37 all. You can't give a team a 7 goal head start and expect to come over the top of them.

it was pretty clear from ground level row 35 of the southern stand that Essendon* wanted to win more than we did !

nothing more complicated than that. M'thinks the blue boys thought they had 3 in a row sown up before the first bounce.

nothing to be too fussed about, we'll learn from that

_________________
NG
S M C , S F L

It took Fev 5 years to get to where he is - Key forwards don't grow on trees which is why some teams have only 1 or none

_________________
Ecclesiastes 1:4, "One generation passes away, and another generation comes: but The Blues abide forever."

_________________
NG
S M C , S F L

Ummm....so Ratts needs to tell the players to be hard at the ball... he needs to send a message out? Time the players took responsibility. Easier to blame Ratts though I guess.

25%?

_________________
#DonTheStash

Canberra?

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

It's a development year for players and coaches. Somethings don't work and other things do work.

Yeah, why change a winning formula?

Bentick in the guts contesting the hardball.
Hampson in the ruck to rotate with the young Kreuzer and short Cloke to keep the pressure of a tall ruckman on the tall Hille.
Kreuzer as another option in the forwardline, with Waite pinch hitting up there as an option in need.
Keep the players' focussed on winning the hardball and retaining possession.
Tempo footy when the other team gains momentum.

So whose responsibility is it to maintain the winning formula?

The Coach and MC select, strategise and communicate so the players understand, and the players to execute.

I reckon Ratts was panced, but it doesn't matter. Truly, surprisingly I thought we were beaten by a better team. That is unless their game plan was far more superior to ours. I thought we played a negative game, and we tried to avoid a shoot out whilst employing shoot out tactics.

Whose idea was it to play the slow Cloke at CHF (on a wet day) against a CHB with blistering speed. The ball was generally going to be on the floor. Well at least we learned from that.

Ratts got sucked into playing a 195cm ruckman against Hille or was that someone else's fault?

Hampson, whilst he hasn't featured high on the stat sheets, has been doing a lot of 1%ers which I value, so if you believe he didn't do a role against Port and Coillingwood, you didn't see the little things our 20yo developing ruckman did, and you missed something exceptional.

Hampson looked to understand the nuances of the game; if you're not getting possession, make sure you make thing easier for your team mates. I saw his value...and in a development year, he learns something new every game, about footy and himself. I look at Hampson as an investment, but we must grow him. Experience is the mother of all learning. If we need him to get his hand on the footy more in the Ants, then why don't they promote Jacobs for some of that tonic (experience) and to give support to the short Cloke and tiring Kreuzer.

Molly, if we are trying to change things in our forwardline, as Riley states, then why is it that Fev gets almost 85% of the forward entry targeting him? That aint different. Is that the players' fault? Kick to who? Fisher between 50 meter arc and wing? Cloke outside the 50 meter arc? Kreuzer in the ruck?

It was a great effort in the last to get back in front. It was obvious that when Bentick was taken out of the middle, the Bumbers came back. That's what got us in trouble in the first place.

Never mind. It's a development year for everyone. Ratts didn't get everything right with his plans.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Yeah Bondi,

of course Hammer did some nice things against Port and Collingwood... but he didn't do heaps and heaps. Would it have hurt him to play this week? No. Did it hurt for Browne to play this week? No.

Where Ratts has his hands tied is against the monstering ruckmen - Hille, Ottens, and Charman. He doesn't have an answer to those guys because we do not yet have an answer to those guys. So what does he do? Maybe he gives Hammer a shot, but Hammer hasn't been getting heaps of gametime and is still developing. So he just goes for Cloke and Kreuzer and hopes that an extra ballwinner will negate any ascendency they may get on ball. Once again, the fact we don't have anyone who can go with Hille is a list management issue, it isn't a Ratts issue.

But where we really got hurt was in intensity. And that's all about the players getting ahead of themselves and believing their own press. I'm just sick of every time we lose hearing that it is Ratten's fault... time the players copped some blame for what was an insipid performance.

..well, as far as key forwards go, not every team has more than 1 real key forward.. ..we're very lucky to have the best FF goin' about.. ..as for the question why fev isn't helped by others.. ..well, if they kicked straighter he'd get alot of help.. .. ..far, far too many easy shots missed (not make the distance either Fish).. ..kicking skills yesterday were vfl standard (gibbs/fev exempted)..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

Heard on SEN today that the Doggies have 4 players who have kicked 25 or more goals this season. This is the sort of even spread we should be aiming for - maybe looking to get 50-70 goals a year out of fev, with another 2-3 players getting 30+.

It really worries me - whilst I love watching Fev, we need to have multiple options up forward, or we're never going to become a serious finals contender. Look at the top 2 or 3 teams:

Geelong have multiple goal scoeres - Chapman, Mooney, Ablett, Johnson, Lonergan, Varcoe, etc etc

Hawthorn have Buddy, Roughead, williams, boyle

Bulldogs - Hahn, murphy, welsh, johnson, aker...

We need to build a game plan that brings as many forward scoring options into the side. Then we become dangerous (*markharvey*). We are still paying the price for the one-forward Pagan paddock game plan.

Not sure what the solution is, hopefully Harts can stay fit, Edwards can come on and Kruez can be utilised more as a forward.

apparently he knocked back a 3yr deal believed to be worth 2mil

bad news, what do we have to do to sign him

_________________
"You don’t get much more Navy Blue than Stephen Kernahan" - Marc Murphy