Round 1
Lots of credit for selecting all the newbies; success upon success.
The only dubious selection was Scotland (who had missed a lot of the preseason but played okay) ahead of Walker (who seemed fitter but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was an injury waiting to happen).
Rat-ing = A Every selection worked a treat.

Round 2
No change - hard to argue although the injury to Jamison meant that we were very light on against the two Brisbane forwards. Scotland struggled second up.
Rat-ing = B Did nothing wrong because they did nothing at all.

Round 3
Stevens and Grigg returned after suspension and injury (no brainer) - Scotland given a chance to get some fitness and form with the Ants (strong decision and fair enough) and Jamison out injured.
We were stretched against Brisbane without Jamo but the MC did not select Setanta. As a result we did not have a suitable match up for the taller Essendon* forwards and bloody Lloyd found some form. The writing was on the wall but nobody on the MC was willing to read it.
Rat-ing = D Cost us the points in a close match.

Round 4
Armfield forced his way in for the young skinny kid Garlett. No real need for Setanta this week against the Swans. Scotland not doing enough to earn a recall.
Rat-ing = B Team played crap but no fault of the MC.

Round 5
Grigg and Jacobs out injured - Robinson (lost his spark) and Hadley (maybe unlucky but not much of a runner) omitted. Carrazzo (lots of run), Scotland (more run), Setanta and Jamison (obvious) included. The only real question was Setanta as backup ruckman because he really isn't one but he provides necessary versatility.
Rat-ing = A Strong reaction to the loss in Sydney.

Round 6
Johnson (injured but no great loss) replaced by Bentley (not even a defender). I have seen Bentley playing with the Ants and he has been doing pretty well in the centre clearances but he didn't get to play there against the Hawks and he struggled. Hard to believe he was selected ahead of Browne, Bannister and Anderson who are all more mobile and could have played in defence or Hadley, who would have at least spent some time in the middle. Also hard to believe that one of our most attacking defenders (T-Bird) was again mismatched against a big bodied opponent while Setanta was used in virtually every other position.
Rat-ing = C There goes another close one.

The season to date = Questionable selection of different types of players to replace injured players and questionable management of our big men.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

The selection of Bentley was a real shocker and the decision to play T-bird on Roughhead was poor. Although the dawks are a bloody smart side and used the kick over the top to great effect as Bret plays too far in front of his opponent at times. But selecting Bentley OMG

_________________
C'mon Blueboys!

Pretty much agree with everything you've said RR, especially the 2 obvious bad ones in the non- selection of Setanta in Rnd 2 and the selection of Bentley on Saturday. The thing the staggered me most about the latter was that if they selected him for a big-bodies clearance role, why didn't he get the opportunity to play it? It seemed to me at the ground and on the replay that he was almost playing a link-man type role and trying to create space on a wing.

For me the biggest positive has been the progress of AJ as the small defender. It's a position we have really suffered in over the past few years and he brings the hardness, dash and desparation this needs. Can't wait for him to play on that piece of sh1t flowerhead Milne!!

_________________
I'm shocked to be sitting here

Agree with a lot but not all.

Surely our bad goal kicking had something to do with our loss to the dons not selection.

...and thornton our most attacking defender? I see him take a mark let the oposition set up there grid the kick it sideways to the easy contest. He has no dash.

When you are developing a team there are a lot of things you have to take into concideration. The MC have an idea of what they want. They select accordingly. Sometimes it will not work because someone is unable to do what they want due to a bad form or the player being no good. I dont think that giving up on the plan the moment something new (LLoyds flukey game) gets thrown at us is the way to go.

The good coaches stick with their idea and see it through. Roos,Thompson and Clarkson rarely if ever change things up. Slight tweeks but nothing more.

MC doing fine this year. If we lose games like Dons and Swans next season i will be a bit harsher.

Why must the loss be caused by either bad kicking or bad selection? Couldn't both have contributed?

And to say that a guy who's now kicked over 900 goals showed something new and flukey by kicking 5 is a bit odd.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned. You can argue that it doesn't matter how many goals you give away as long as you kick more up the other end but in my book selecting the best defensive unit for the opposition is a key to success.

True. I would like to see us be stronger defensively also ,not just the back six but the whole 22. I have the feeling Ratts is teaching our team on the drip. Over the pre season he tried out clusters and full on zones but must have felt we are not ready yet.
Hopefully it will get implemented next season and be the final piece to the puzzle.

Flukey might not have been the best choice of words for lloyd but he hasnt been kicking alot this year.

Seems to me that you in spite of stating the opposite mix selection and player performance. Too easy to rate the MC high when we win and vica versa.

_________________
TC suffers from the social media illness - the death of respect and constructive discourse by keyboard.

There's a bunch of stuff that I would disagree with the MC on. I won't go through game-by-game but a few points;

1. Scotland should not have been dropped at all for one quiet game. Full stop!!
2. Bentley is not up to it and should not have been selected
3. Garlett will be great in time - we got away with his selection against the pitifuls and scraped through against the Brions but we were lucky. To keep him on for the Scummers was madness.
4. We can't go into games with just Kreuzer and 2 third class rucks.

Summary - We're too dogmatic with our approach to selection. We have an 'ideal team scenario' in our heads and dismiss an alternative plan. Once we embrace the basics of football, we'll begin to see better results.

_________________
end of message

I always find it hard to rate the coach or the MC from the outside looking in. What criteria should we use? Win/loss ratio? I don't think so.

Interesting post, RR. Carlos might have made a big difference to the result in Round 3, but I'm not certain about that. He was a bit underdone at the time, and who's to say that he would have done any better than T-Bird on Lloyd? And if we hadn't have played the extra runner, the Bummers might have run over us sooner in that game.

Bentley's selection over Hadley sort of leaps out as an odd one by the MC. Then again, I think it's a positive that they are prepared to be bold and give young players a chance. And I agree with you, he had been in very good VFL form.

Aside from possibly the Bentley one, I've been pretty comfortable with the MC's selections this year so far, FWIW.

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

I agree with a lot of your post RR and you have the benefit of watching much more training and the Ants than most of us, but I'm probably with a aboynamedsue on the Setanta one in round 3.

LLoyd picked up what he normally picks up against us recently, with or without Irish. When McPhee was suspended and they replaced him with a runner it was unlikely Setanta would get a call up.

I'm not sure Sauce, Irish and Cloke are a good idea in the same team FWIW. Especially against a quick team.

Poor kicking for goal and again not being able to cope with the pace of their runners especially at halfback cost us IMO. Still if we are going to progress a game we should have won easily

As you and aboynamedsue point out the Bentley one is the strange one, especially when he really didn't have a great deal of gametime

Someone on the MC must have really championed his cause.

Its not just the Lloyd match-up. In the two games where T-Bird has been mismatched against Roughead and Lloyd, we also lost his offensive contribution. By comparison, he was one of our more effective players against the Tiggers and Puppies - offensively and defensively.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

Fair point RR, and I agree T-Bird looks a better player (and we look a better team) when he's freed up. But I still tend to think that we needed the extra runner vs Ess, so I don't have a problem with the MC's team selection for that game.

I also tend to think our inaccuracy in the first half of Rd 3 was more costly than Carlos' non-selection...

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

Yeah, spot on Rat.

Let me ask you something thou. Do you honestly think Yarran is ready?

His form has been OK, and he has really only played one decent game, and last week he DIDNT EVEN PLAY.... yet they pick him this week?

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

That probably raises another issue. Should we at this stage in their careers, be so hellbent on having our two senior defenders in T-Bird and Waite, playing as either loose man or on a lesser opponent? Should T-Bird really be considered a mis-match on an out of form LLoyd who is coming towards the end of his career and is now much lighter than he was at the peak of his career?

The backline is more of a team effort with rotations these days rather than always having a set fullback and CHB etc, but for me they are interesting questions.

FWIW T-Bird didn't have the greatest of days, but all of Jammo, Setanta and Waite had a go at Roughie and he picked up marks on all of our blokes. Funnily enough the only one Roughie really monstered in a contest was Setanta.

IMHO he hasn't earned promotion and that is disappointing but I suspect he will contribute more than either Bentley or Houlihan.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

Setanta was on him for a single contest while I think Jamo and Waite only ended up with him as a result of the usual cut and thrust of the match and were not actually matched up against him.

As far as being monstered is concerned, Setanta could not have worn him any closer; Roughead marked the ball one-handed because it was perfectly delivered to his advantage and he was flatout trying to fend off Setanta with the other arm. I suspect he would have had two hands free against each of the other three.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

Round 6 rates a C?

If youre rating the MC on selections they should get an F for the game against the Hawks.

The inclusion of Bently was a shocker and cost us 4 points.

Seems like they are trying make the hard decisions at the selection table keeping everybody on the list on edge i.e Houla's omission, Browne and Anderson's selected as emergencies, Austin and Yarren's selection this week i think what they are doing will be a good thing in a long run.

_________________
WE ARE CARLTON @#$%&! THE REST

RR I reckon the MC gave Garlett and Robinson 1 week too many each, and it cost us a little through these players having little impact in their last games. I know it's a big call in hindsight, but I wouldn't have played those two in their respective last 2 games and I genuinely felt that way leading up to those games. Clubs take a gamble when they bring in kids, they know they will put in a shocker at some point, and play russian rhoulette in terms of when to drop them.

_________________
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it

Monstered was probably too strong a word , but Roughie was able to hold him off with one arm and it was probably his only contested mark. Couldn't you argue that the mismatched Thornton also suffered due to balls delivered to advantage?

I totally agree that Jammo and Waite generally ended up with Roughie due to the cut and thrust of the game(although I'm pretty sure Waite was his starting opponent for a bit), but thats modern football and as I mentioned the backline is more of a team effort these days, which is why you need so many 190cm plus players back there to accomodate all the switching on and off players due to phases of play.

By suspecting that Roughie would have had two hands free against our other blokes, are you suggesting that Setanta is our best defender in a contested situation?