Melvey wrote



I get it now.

Our improvement this year has got nothing to do with Ratts; it's from the inclusion of Judd and Stevens in 2008.

So, the list is shit, and Ratts has done a good job with it, in terms of what any other coach could have done, because it's not the coach it's 2 players who have improved us.

Nah mate. Everyone in the footy world knows how much better Carlton 07 would be with the inclusion of Judd. The question we are toying with here is what improvement can we put down to Ratts' coaching/ mentoring/ aura/ inspiration/ advice/ instruction etc ...call it what you like.

The argument thus far is that we don't know if Ratts' inclusion can account for:

The improvement in Russell (because, whilst I'm not a fan, Russell has improved a lot in 2008)
The improvement of Grigg (if you remember the rabbit in headlights last year then you know there's 100% improvement).
The improvement in Gibbs, Betts, Jamison and Bentick (or is their improvement organic?)
The blooding of Armfield and Browne (masterstroke?).
The decline in output/ form in Fisher, Carrazo, Thornton, Cloke, Jackson, Aisake, Hampson, Setanta etc (misuse, positioning, neglect?)
The mystery of Jacobs, Benjamin, Edwards (should they remain on the list?)
The failure to improve the fowardline structure (Is it Fisher's fault?)
The improvement in our defensive quality and stock (or natural maturity from expeirience gained by the kids during Pagan's reign?)
The persistence of playing Wiggins, Russell (protecting smaller bodies? Are they playing a role we can't see?)

One thing that's obvious to me, is there's no absolute in this argument. Yes there may be a hint of rose coloured glasses, but I also think that in the main, we are only guessing as onlookers, and it's quite obvious to all there is a problem with our forwardline structure and a weakness with our #1 ruckman Cloke,

I think there's a deeper issue here though. I really enjoyed the run at all costs strategy Ratts imposed in the preseason, only to see it disappear during the real season. I thought for young bodies with pace, this was a better game plan for their development. The question is why was this abandoned?

Well my take on this is that with Ratts given a 2 year contract to turn the ship around, this implied he was going to be judged by how many games we won and finals by 2009. There was even a favoured number of wins suggested by the president. This is not condusive to a development strategy, and I do not believe that Ratts is doing what he would do with a 3 year strategy, and bona fide development focus.

One thing that stands out here at TC land, Ratts is being judged by the number of wins we have on the board and we are compared with the results of the Tigers and Bombers moreso than our development. You can't have it both ways...poor Ratts loses either way. Get it?

If we were really trying to develop players in positions and finding out more about our list moving forward we would not be playing Cloke and Wiggins, nor sticking with the same players week in week out (suchas Russell)....if that was the case. We would be running the ball through the guts at all costs, and we would be playing players in positions we would expect them to play in our tilt for the flag. We would be developing players and positions; structure!!

Is everything Ratts' fault? I don't think so.

Would Worsfold have done a better job? Think WCE 2008.
Would Roos have done a better job? Think bang crash and stoppages with our skinny kids in 2008.

We've done OK, Ratts is OK, the year has been OK, a lot of things frustrate all of us...but can we agree on one thing, and that is the @#$%&! umpires have continued to hamper our cause in 2008 as they traditionally have done.; that hasn't helped Ratten or Carlton...or my bloood pressure.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

bondiblue i think all will be answered this time next year.

Ratts has his doubters and his supporters and we all making our assessment on the progress of this team. We're all not going to be on the same level in terms of where we think we should be at.

It's called passion. No doubt all we want is the best and nothing but the best for our club. We all can't sit here and sugar coat everything nor accept mediocrity for the sake of fearing instability. We must always be demanding the best, demanding reasons and expect answers.

I admit its pretty early to be making a call on Ratts and maybe its me being a little impatient but i can't help not feeling convinced nor have seen anything to convince me yet. Time will tell

I love passion but a bit of intelligence never hurt anyone.

How was Essendon* going with Lucas out and Hille not playing well? Hmm gee let me think - Ryder was struggling, Lloyd was gone, and they lost what umm 8 on the trot! @#$%&! genius coaching!

But wait - Lucas comes in, Lloyd starts to fire, Hille starts to find form, Fletcher too, and gee willacas granma, they play better don't they!

But we are not allowed to consider Judd and Stevens - oh but they can consider Lucas and Llyod and Fletcher and Hille....yep Socrates would love the argument there.

And Richmond - we stand at 1 all. Not bad considering Ratts hasn't a clue and Wallace is a genius. Oh but that's right we have Judd and...hang on did he play the first and second time against richmond? But we won the second...hmmm...


it seems though Melvey the real issue for you has nothing to do with facts but a vendetta. Each week (well almost, the wins get in the way a bit for ya, but almost each week) you espouse the glories of the opposition coaches and bag Ratts.

It seems Ratts can do know right (but hey, use that old, tired as a well used dish rag, cliche - take off your rose coloured glasses, cos you know, blind people don't need glasses, or arguments! -

so really the issue is - how good is he going?

Well he can only be judged on the team - not on components - you cannot take out our best players and then say - gee he coaches like shit.

so for mine

3 aspects for a coach

a) spirit of a team - A plus for Ratts on this one.

b) Flexibility of a team - getting better and with Tex in the side and Gibbs blossoming it will get better - b plus here for Ratts I think. We need a ruckman and then watch out!

c) Development of kids/strategies.
Kids are going brilliantly. Not all, but he cannot play all, he's deciding who, and so far we have played a lot and developed a fair few. Bower Griggs Gibbs Jammo Armfield until injured, JR just to name a few. Stategies - I'd say he really wanted to focus one 2 things. Defense and Fight to the death. A plus for both.

Next year - rucks, forward set up and speed. Let's see how he does eh, and lets not expect him to get it all right in one go - after all this is the youngest list running around - unlike Essendon* and Richmond.

_________________
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!

Keogh wrote



Yep!

My question, like many others is why aren't we pushing the buttons to extract surpring bonus'?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

dannyboy wrote



We are a work in progress.

Whos our oldest player? Scotland, Stevens, Fevola...what...they're all 27, 28 in 2008.

We MUST...and I bet we will gest ourselves a ruckman to support the development of Kreuzer and Hampson in 2009. I've been arguing this for many years now...but you know, I know it's coming because it's just another piece of the puzzle that's missing for us, for Ratts and for any coach looking after this list.

As for the orwardline structure..mmm...I expect better for the remainder of 2008...at least some variety...an attempt to omprove and find ourselves something from 2008; that would give us something to work from in 2009.

We are coming...watch out Tigers and Bombers, Knights and Wallace.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Nicely put Dannyboy.

Melvey....

No one else says the things you do, others might share some similarities in the views you hold, but no one puts quite the tilt on them that you can some how manage. If someone quite plainly says silly things as then they should expect being told so!

I must be misinterpreting your posts because I honestly think you enjoy being controversial and therefore want abit of a reaction, if this is not the case and you genuinely think this way then im stunned, because your comments on a wide range of issues are more often than not pretty negative and unsupportive.

[edited by mods]

How was your sabbatical Melvin? Calmed you down much?

_________________
“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.

Thanks mods wrong button there somewhere, cheers.

Double post

_________________
“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.

Well it's a good healthy debate which is always good to see. Some are extremely pessimistic, others blindly optimistic.

My own views probably lie somewhere in between (more towards Melvey's side though ).

It's just that, despite our improvement this year, when you see other teams who have worse lists than us doing better than us, you have to ask the question whether the people in the box are doing a good enough job. Of course, it's very hard to quantify that sort of thing due to so many grey areas and thus I will wait a little bit longer (mid next year) to fully judge Ratts and co.

I can't believe I am defending Essendon* but here goes


Which players are you talking about? Lucas, Lloyd, Michael and Fletcher?

Well, they might be keys to their team but they have pretty good replacements for all but Fletcher.

Neagle looks a pretty good full-forward and will be good in a couple of years.

Gumbleton just needs to get on the park but he looked extremely promising in all 5 games he has played.

Ryder looks very good as a backman too, true he is not very physical but his leap and athleticism make him pretty good and he runs away and becomes an attacking option too. Two more years in the gym will add even more improvement to him.

So they have most of their bookends covered and are pretty good in the replacement areas. Their backline is a bit suspect without the experience and they need to add another key position backman but I think they will be able to do that with from one of Daniher/Atkinson (looked good today)/someone like Hurley this year. Not much different to our suspect forward line really.

The thing with Essendon* though is that player for player we shit all over them yet their players play with a bit of flair, they have structure and look like they know exactly what they want to do with the ball once they get. Our players don't, but like I said in the post above this, I'm prepared to wait a little bit longer with Ratts and will give him the benefit of the doubt. I just hope the right questions will be asked of him if he doesn't deliver enough.

You are clutching at straws and being overly presumptuous there.

They have Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher covered?

Neagle may turn out to be a good player but its a fair bet he won't be anywhere near as good as Lloyd.

Gumbleton still has a long long long way to go before he fills Lucas' boots.

Ryder shows ability, but once again, he'll need to improve a hell of a lot more to fill Fletcher's boots.

AFAIC, they're screwed when Llloyd, Lucas and Fletcher hang up their boots.