Please please please do not let this degenerate into personal abuse or circular arguments again.

If anyone has something new to the argument then fine....otherwise just back off for a week.

Hey Sinners re gamotto, are you going to answer my question re the Saints game from the other thread now that you're back?

I missed it.. wanna ask again???

i do know that the saints tackled 113 times... including softflowers snyder milne montagna....

its a mindset... its a gameplan... and its what we have to be doing....

our intensity will not be up if we have been asked to chip chip chip around to possess the footy.. cos players fall into weak mindset...

but ask again... Ellas!!!

I think some people forget about some of our great sides...

So thinking back to the last six weeks, we've seen grinding wins over North and Freo, a last quarter surge against Sydney, a routine win against Richmond, a belting by Collingwood, and a great win over Geelong.

Now why do I talk about some of our great sides? Because they weren't 'up' for the game every single week. They'd play sides they knew they would dispatch like the Doggies and St Kilda and they would lift for 10-15 mins, bury the opposition, and then just switch off. It wasn't like we dominated every single week. We focused on different opponents, and just routinely put away those we knew we should.

OK... before everyone tells me this isn't a great Carlton side - well, I fully agree. But I would like to point out that anyone who thinks of Carlton and premierships is having selective memory if they think we just blitzed every week. We'd wait until we were playing the Hawthorns, Essendons, and Collingwoods and we'd switch on, but in between there would be some very routine victories where the side looked half asleep.

It seems to me like we are developing a side that can at least go and get the routine victories. Sure the wins against Freo and North weren't pretty, but they were effective. The side is obviously still learning how to cope with the pressure that comes from being favourites - and I think that is fair enough.

The other thing is, which premiership sides in history can we say have looked switched on for pretty much every game of a season? Geelong two years ago, Essendon* in 2000, and Carlton in 1995 are the only ones which come to mind. St Kilda will fall into the same boat if they win this year. Geelong fell over at the final hurdle last year.

So look... it is a developing side, and yeah it is one which hasn't switched on for all of their matches. Wins against Essendon* and Collingwood would have made the season feel so much better too. But anyone who wants to get stuck into us because we have won 5 games out of 6, but haven't looked switched on in those games is ignoring:

Carlton's own premiership history
The premiership history of the rest of the competition

I do think Ratts needs to get better at getting the players more focused for 'routine' games. But at the end of it all, we've got four routine wins in our last 6. And from memory we have a 5-3 record against the rest of the top 8. Ratts must be doing some things right to achieve that.

But anyway, go back to grinding the axe people.

Good point.

I'd go so far as to say if any team was to win every match of the season it's as likely to be a result of an inferiority complex than any sense of greatness.

The great teams from all clubs have always known they were exceptional and many have been prone to not get "up" for crap opposition.

If St Kilda win every game this year it'll be partially because they're history leaves them susceptible to the fear of failure.

The joy of watching St Kilda go into a Grand Final undefeated is that the pressure on them to win will be so massive it could well influence the result.

And wouldn't that be fun to watch...

And just while we are on it. The theme from the anti-Ratten posters last year was development. He can't develop the kids, they are going nowhere, etc.

So this year we can point to significant development across a range of players (Joseph and Hammer to name two). So the antis move on to a new theme. I wonder what they will come up with in season 2010?

Montagna didn't play and I'm not sure why you are including Schneider, as although he has reached a new level with the Saints his defensive efforts for the Swans were as good as the levels Milne has only now attained. It was Davis for the Swans who couldn't do the defensive stuff. Can't disagree about Milne though

Chip chip isn't the problem in itself as one of the best defensive sides in Sydney have used it pretty effectively over the years without losing that intensity.

I agree that we have lacked intensity at times both as a team and especially some individuals.... Which is why we have had so many changes at the selection table on occasion and senior players spending time in the magoos. Although we actually have rarely been out-tackled in many games which is why our tackle differential is the fourth best in the comp, but the intensity doesn't only relate to defensive efforts, but offensive running to create options further up the ground and running in support of the bloke in possession. That consistency in effort is a must going forward and one the coaching panel need to work on.

Chip chip IS the problem.. unless you are thinking we can superimpose the Swans list onto our list?
Is that what youre thinking?

Yes of course defence is not just locking down an opponent... the best form of defence is offensive.

Castles dont usually have one set of walls...thats just in movies...

They have walls within walls within defensive structures.

But youre not going to get any kind of defensive structure if you are have half a side locking down.. the other side running half way and the plan is to chip and not spread.

We dont spread nearly as well as the good sides...
were too static.... cos were expecting an easy ball get...

Ellas???.... whats stkilda one off game got to do with anything???

swans should have beaten them and theyre not even in the eight....

when you take a snapshot of a footy teams performance you take one of the whole season and then you break that down into a series of snapshots.
i didnt say we dont have the cattle to do well... ive always said we do...

ive said we have underperformed...

now if you think ratts coached well against geelong and stkilda... by attacking and having us primed and hungry... you must also say that he didnt coach werll against a whole heap of sides because we were overly defensive and lame...


when have i said we shouldnt be more aggresive in the way we play and be more offensive???

when i have i said we should be locking down 6 swans players....when they hadnt won a game in 7 weeks???

ive always mainatined that youth is nothing but an excuse.. and only the unambitious use it as an excuse to mediocrity...

Look... if you reckon that good teams are switched on each and every week of the season then you are living in la la land. Good teams do what it takes to win games of footy. They don't play their A game every single week of the season... it just isn't physically or mentally possible. Those three games I mentioned in 2005 were lacklustre efforts, and then of course we went on to get pounded by St Kilda and Sydney. But when did they play their A game? They played their A game against Essendon* in round 22, or against North and Geelong in the finals. They PRIMED themselves for the big matches.

So... Ratts is bad, we have no game plan, we dont develop the kids.... blah, blah, blah.

We are sitting 5th with a decent chance at top 4 after not playing finals since 2001. How people still can harp about Ratts etc. is beyond me. Mission is accomplished even if we go out in straight sets. Next year we will be top 4 with a crack at the flag. Can't ask for more or you are completely unreasonable.