TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

The Whitnall Move???????
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9784		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  BLUEtiful [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  The Whitnall Move???????
Regardless of whether we would have won tonight or not, the football overall was abysmal - boring, back and forth, error after error.

For the first time in weeks we started hot - Whitnall was up forward. Now I'm not suggesting he was soley responsible for our good start but he played a crucial role. We suddenly had structure and targets going forward, it was a pleasure to watch.

I thought T-BIrd was doing a decent job on Richo and I think Whitts was doing fantastically up forward. So why did Denis move him back? And when things started going downhill why wasn't Whitts moved forwards????

I hate screaming at the TV, but tonight was one of those nights.

Thought Waite did fantastically to get into position, but needs to hold marks. McLaren showed some good moments down back and Thornton looked better down back. Kouta did some good things too.

Lappo had an off night

Bannister is a worthy inclusion.

I think we're a poorly coached team. Our players have fantastic potential. What a shame!
Author:  TruBlueBrad [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
dannyboy answered this in another thread and it makes sense. We needed someone back there to set up play, Richmond were starting tot ake control so we did need Lance back there. The ball wasn't getting down there so he wasn't going to be effective up forward any longer anyway
Author:  dannyboy [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'll say it again, french and co were getting killed once Stevo was taken out of the equation, Anyone wish to question his influence in this team watch what happens to us after his influence is subdued.

Plus did AB recover from that Richo bump - his impact seemed to drop of markedly after it?

So i think Denis wa sbeing proactive. he understood that the ball was going to go their way an awful lot and hoped Lance would help us set plays up from the backline.

ps - this is not to say i am a happy camper with Denis tonight - I am not. But that move is not something that bothered me.
Author:  Jarusa [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
We had something like 5 inside 50's in the second quarter!!

What was Lance going to do up forward? Kick 5 goals for the quarter?
Author:  Tractor Boy [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Crazy i still can't understand it.... Pagan once coached one of the greatest CHF's ever-- Carey.

Now he wants to coach the greatest defender ever --Lance.

Surely this could be his motive ... Please someone come on here and justisfy the move... Anyone please defend Pagan restore our faith....
Author:  dannyboy [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
see now your just being silly.

Here is one for you - who tagged Kouta in the 1999 grand final?
Author:  Blue Vain [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
dannyboy wrote:
I'll say it again, french and co were getting killed once Stevo was taken out of the equation, Anyone wish to question his influence in this team watch what happens to us after his influence is subdued.

Plus did AB recover from that Richo bump - his impact seemed to drop of markedly after it?

So i think Denis wa sbeing proactive. he understood that the ball was going to go their way an awful lot and hoped Lance would help us set plays up from the backline.

ps - this is not to say i am a happy camper with Denis tonight - I am not. But that move is not something that bothered me.


No offence Danny, but if you're going to keep peddling this Lance nonsense, confine it to one thread where I know I can avoid it, instead of spreading it everywhere.

Lance was wasted down back. How many times did he actually beat Richo Danny?
He is far more value to us in the forward line.
He takes superior defenders away from Waite and Fisher and controls his position.
We are finally playing a game style that Lance will flourish in and we wet our pants and put him back. :?
Author:  Jarusa [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm a bit more on the fence with this one.

I think the initial move of Whitnall onto Richo was understandable given the way Richmond started the second quarter.

So the move itself was not a mistake, the mistake to me was leaving him there for the rest of the game. He should have been moved back to the forward line in the second half to try to wrest the momentum back.
Author:  Synbad [ Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
The best form of defence is attack.
Lance isnt a CHB.. he is way too reactive when the screws are turned and he doesnt play close to his man.

Id rather see him in the forward line.. but we have to start looking beyond Lance and into the future.

Youre not going anywhere with a forward line consisting of Waite Fev Lance Fisher and throw in Kennedy... its just not balanced.

I cant wait for Kennedy to come in and develop.
He is a Collossus in stature and will straighten us up.
Author:  Blues2005 [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
I could see the logic in the move of Lance into defence but what left me stunned was the persistence of playing Lance in defence when the game was there to be won in the second half and especially the last quarter.

We were always in striking distance and surely in that situation you move Lance forward and throw caution to the wind and try and win the game. If you lose by 5 or 6 goals well at least you made the right move. So we only lost by 8 points but we're left wondering why the hell Lance wasn't thrown into attack. In other words we didn't give ourselves a CHANCE at winning the match and believe me because of some bad kicking we were always a show.
Author:  Blue Vain [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Jarusa wrote:
I'm a bit more on the fence with this one.

I think the initial move of Whitnall onto Richo was understandable given the way Richmond started the second quarter.


But why is it understandable Jarusa?
Matthew Richardson has to be the best and most consistent exponent of the contested mark for years.
Where was plan B?
Livo should have been selected on the bench as second crack on Richo.........or Stafford.......or Simmonds.

We took our most effective forward and placed him in the backline.
Whilst we were in front!
We played a team with an abundance of tall forwards and didnt have the brains to structure up.

Same ol' same ol'
Author:  Jarusa [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Blue Vain wrote:
Jarusa wrote:
I'm a bit more on the fence with this one.

I think the initial move of Whitnall onto Richo was understandable given the way Richmond started the second quarter.


But why is it understandable Jarusa?
Matthew Richardson has to be the best and most consistent exponent of the contested mark for years.
Where was plan B?
Livo should have been selected on the bench as second crack on Richo.........or Stafford.......or Simmonds.

We took our most effective forward and placed him in the backline.
Whilst we were in front!
We played a team with an abundance of tall forwards and didnt have the brains to structure up.

Same ol' same ol'



Surely as a coach you are allowed to try things? We were getting killed in the centre (5 inside 50's for the quarter)

Like I said in the rest of that post, my main gripe was that Whitnall was left in defence for the rest of the game.

That was the big mistake IMO not the intitial move.
Author:  dannyboy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:20 am ]
Post subject: 
now BV yes I know you think Denis doesn't know what he is doing but really. We were ion front why? Because Richmond in the 3nd and 3rd didn;t put us away.

Now if you want to argue Lance could be moved back in the last as a chance to win the game that's a different argument. But to say the move should not have been made, just how were we going to get the ball down to Lance - osmosis?
Author:  Deano Supremo [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:22 am ]
Post subject: 
I thought this thread was going to be about how it's now illegal to be aware of your opponent and the ball.
Author:  Wolfe [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Whits should have been pushed back to the forward line no doubt about that ... and i strongly belive Banister should have been in on Richo
He has been used at CHB for the bullants last season and the games this year was best for the Bullants for 8 of the last games for the bullants and BOG for the first 2 games this year for the Bullants. He should have been an option and given a crack at least he would have been mobile enough to contest with Richo and would have allowed Whits to remain in the forward line.
Author:  mjonc [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Can someone tell me if T-Bird was left on Richo what the difference between Richos output would of been at the end of the game?

If you said nothing you would be correct.

If only the coaching staff had a clue and actually watched the tapes from the first quarter last week. :roll:
Author:  dannyboy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 
that's right nothing - we would have lost - so we needed to do something to try and win.
Author:  Blue4ever [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 
No doubt Whitnall should have gone forward after half time. Once again we went deffensive, bythe way what's the story with Saddington, surely if he is going to play seniors he has to take some of the talls. Who did he play on?
Author:  dannyboy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
bt apparently we should have left Whits in forward line and hoped the ball somehow found its ay down there. Notice on the second quarter the ball]basically stayed up in the richmond forward line (i reckon for the first 20 @#$%&! minutes) until???? hmmmm
Author:  mjonc [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:31 am ]
Post subject: 
dannyboy wrote:
that's right nothing - we would have lost - so we needed to do something to try and win.


Richo still would of had his night out, but Lance may of also had a night out which could of been the difference between winning and losing, but nooooooooooooooo, the [REDACTED] up coaching commitee drank too much tea during the selection meetings to think of other alternatives like Saddington, McLaren or Walker.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/