Are our midfielders unaccountable because they are told to leave their opponents and head for defensive 50?
| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Interesting contrast between Pagan and Clarkson tactics http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10011 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | nightcrawler [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Interesting contrast between Pagan and Clarkson tactics |
The Hawks are basically short a forward because Barker's body is cactus and they traded Thompson. They have a few handy inconsistant bit part forwards, but basically they need Williams to kick 8 every week to post a winning score. The Hawks also have Croad who is a very versitile player capable of playing either end of the ground, but his best form is in defence where he was the All-Australian CHB in 2005. In spite of this, Clarkson plays him forward because that gives the Hawks a forward structure with multiple key targets. Now playing Croad forward leaves a gaping hole in the Hawks defence, and Clarkson tries to fill it with Dawson who is basically out of his league on the elite forwards. Clarkson doesn't care - he keeps Croad forward all game, even if it means Dawson gets 8 kicked on him and the Hawks lose the game because of it. This has only happend twice in the first six games. Most of the time Dawson makes a fist of it, and his team mates cover for him. Now for the most part I think Clarkson is an idiot, but his kooky strategy of actually trying to win the game has the hawks 4-2 and in the top 8. Now take a look at the Blues. We're basically short a defender. We have Fev up forward who needs to kick 8 every week for us to post a winning score. We have Fish and Waite who are handy but inconsitent. We also have whitnall who is very versatile and can play at either end of the ground, but has played his best football as a forward (All-Aust CHF 2000 albeit on the bench). In spite of this, Pagan decides to play Whitnall as a CHB and Luke Livingston (who is out of his league on the competition's elite forwards, but has never had 8 kicked on him that I'm aware of) in the magoos. Do people see where I'm going with this? Do I even need to finish? We are 1-5 even with Whitnall playing back. What is the point? |
|
| Author: | fevolaaaa [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Interesting contrast between Pagan and Clarkson tactics |
nightcrawler wrote: In spite of this, Pagan decides to play Whitnall as a CHB and Luke Livingston (who is out of his league on the competition's elite forwards, but has never had 8 kicked on him that I'm aware of) in the magoos.
Dunno about 8 but he had 9 kicked on him from memory, Neitz. Though I reckon 5 of them the umpire may as well have kicked himself |
|
| Author: | nightcrawler [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Interesting contrast between Pagan and Clarkson tactics |
fevolaaaa wrote: nightcrawler wrote: In spite of this, Pagan decides to play Whitnall as a CHB and Luke Livingston (who is out of his league on the competition's elite forwards, but has never had 8 kicked on him that I'm aware of) in the magoos. Dunno about 8 but he had 9 kicked on him from memory, Neitz. Though I reckon 5 of them the umpire may as well have kicked himself Ok, so once in five seasons then. I stand corrected, but that still makes him at least 50% better than Dawson in my books. Livingston is not really the point though is he. |
|
| Author: | marciblue [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
nightcrawler, the defence isn't necessarily the problem. It is through the middle that we get absolutely smashed. When you have a bunch of disinterested, unaccountable, soft midfielders who are not willing to put in and run hard enough both ways then you will get exposed. Livingston has been crucified by our club and would probably be a better player if his fate hadn't taken him to PP. He maight be serviceable now but he has never been shown much faith and has battled a lot of unfortunate injuries. I'd give him a go but he wont make or break the performance of our backline |
|
| Author: | Effes [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Are our midfielders unaccountable because they are told to leave their opponents and head for defensive 50?
|
|
| Author: | woof [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Effes wrote: Are our midfielders unaccountable because they are told to leave their opponents and head for defensive 50?
And last year they were unaccountable because they headed .... (fill in the rest for me) |
|
| Author: | marciblue [ Mon May 08, 2006 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
perhaps Effes, but the performance in the 2nd half goes beyond the deficiency of the instructions and more to the efforts of the individuals used on ball. But yeah the coaching philosophy is f*#ked!!! |
|
| Author: | ballistic blues [ Mon May 08, 2006 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
we have the SHITEST list in the league............ and thats that |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Mon May 08, 2006 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Effes wrote: Are our midfielders unaccountable because they are told to leave their opponents and head for defensive 50?
No, they do that because some of the mids are unaccountable, and I do not mean Stevens and Houlihan. |
|
| Author: | Effes [ Mon May 08, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimmae wrote: Effes wrote: Are our midfielders unaccountable because they are told to leave their opponents and head for defensive 50? No, they do that because some of the mids are unaccountable, and I do not mean Stevens and Houlihan. Which mids  
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|