cimm1979 wrote:
fraser murphy wrote:
[
I'm not saying there isn't room for new terms or tighter definitions of old terms, but Ted's ignoring terms that are actually there to describe what he wants to (terms he had a hand in coming up with). The reason he's ignoring them is because he no longer owns them. So he wants to popularise new one's that do exactly the same as the old.
So, his self interest notwithstanding, whats you view on the validity of his new terms?
I, like most, gobble this stuff up, particularly when the sides doing badly.
When you are losing everything is wrong. Disposal, fitness, conditioning, tactics so when I hear something new its easy to automatically apply it to our team.
Well, that's the thing, he hasn't actually mentioned any new terms in the Baum article. He's just mentioned his confusion regarding the definitions of old terms. Which is a little mystifying at first glance as the definitions haven't changed radically since he was at CD. Which is why I'm more than a little cynical.
In answer to the broader question of whether DE is worth more than CP, it's rather difficult to say, as all three facets of the game (attack/defence/ball in dispute) are interdependent on one another.
As others have mentioned, if you don't win the ball, it doesn't matter how well you can effectively dispose of it.
Likewise, a team's defence affects how well you can dispose of it. A team's defence also dictates how well you can turn another teams attack into a contested situation.
As to what has been Carlton's problem over the last 2 months, Synbad's holistic appraisal ITT is what I'd lean to the most. The team isn't doing the little things consistently well enough as a team is the best short answer I'd give.
Except for David Ellard. Who's a champ.