mikkey wrote:
And there is some evidence that the Board put pressure on Pagan for short term solutions due to the financial state of the Club. Would have liked to see supporters react to 1 - 3 wins in 04 playing with a bunch of kids drafted at 80 plus that year..... or even keeping Allan & Co.
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.
There is evidence to suggest this is there?
Where is it?
I'd suggest there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 81072.htmlQuote:
Collins said the club had to pursue a youth policy and that meant it should eschew the past practice of recruiting expensive older players from other clubs and trading away early draft picks.
"Topping up is a short-term fix and most of the time you're topping up with high-priced players who have not got a performance on the board, or they're past their prime. Now that is something that happened in the past and we're not going to repeat that.
"We need to get youth into the club . . . and go through a bit of pain to do it."
This is one of several quotes from Ian Collins in 2003 stressing the same point.
He is on record stating that the Carlton list was stuffed and should be rebuilt with youth.
Denis Pagan on the other hand believed that Carltons list was not that bad and was a finals contender.
Pagan then went on to recruit strong experienced players to play a "Direct, efficient collision brand of football"
Instead of taking the opportunity presented to him by the board to rebuild with youth, Pagan recycled players to play his style of game.
The style of game that "stands the heat of finals action".
2ndeffort wrote:
I have not read all of the 'sack pagan' posts, but I have read, I beleive enough. I beleive that there is a double standard in the logic of many posters. Much of the Anti Pagan rhetoric is critical of 'the gameplan' as it is perceived to be overly defensive. There are numerous posts where people are frustrated with our rebounds heading into an empty forward line etc.
Additionally, and I cant quote an individual response but to borrow from the 'Denis Denuto' defence, there is a vibe in many of the posts that they feel Pagan restricts the creative talent in our team (notably 1AW) and that he should have a more creative and attacking approach. Overall I get the feeling that many anti-Paganites want us to take more chances and play a riskier kind of game. Is this a fair assessment of some of the mountain of posts on the subject?? We want to see the kids, we want to attack more, we want to be winning again.
I sat through the pre season of 2003 and watched Pagan take all decision making, creativity and flair away from the playing group.
If a player handballed in the backline, he was told to stop and kick the ball long.
If a player changed direction out of the corridor, he was stopped and told to kick the ball long.
If a player short passed, he was stopped and told to kick the ball long.
The Pagan way was kick the ball long, minimal handling of the ball, repetition and predictability.
The players had any creative thought processes removed from their game.
There was a very basic plan and everyone had to adhere to it.
No spotting up options, no multiple handballs to create space, just get it to the hotspot as quick as possible.
So there is no "vibe"that Pagan restricted creative talent, it is a fact.
I saw it, Headplant saw it , Synbad saw it and many others.
You cant turn this stuff on like a tap.
You cant take all creative licence off the players, not develop it in the new players and then expect them to make good decisions down the track.
The current game style requires intelligent decision making and an ability to create options.
Our players had that removed from there development criteria.
For the record, I dont agree with Cammo's petition. I think it is unprofessional and is a poor reflection on Carlton supporters in general.
Login
Register
FAQ
