There’s been a lot of uncharacteristic poor goal kicking, the last few weeks. Very unusual to see Chapman, Goddard and Watson miss simple shots at goal.
Clearly they are not fit enough, and are struggling to kick with the lactate build up in the legs.
Why? He's injured now. Won't be playing any time soonI wish we'd kept Gumby...
Why? Cos he's a 6'6" natural forward who can take a grab and had become a reliable shot for goal, who we'd finally managed to get on the park and get games into.
I know he's injured, but who's to say he would have suffered that injury if he was still with us?
Why? He's injured now. Won't be playing any time soonI wish we'd kept Gumby...
Why? Cos he's a 6'6" natural forward who can take a grab and had become a reliable shot for goal, who we'd finally managed to get on the park and get games into.
I know he's injured, but who's to say he would have suffered that injury if he was still with us?
Come on. He was always injured. It was inevitable he'd get injured again. Sadly.
Yeah probably. Still irks me…
Hurley has only kicked 5 goals in a game a couple of times, and you think he'd have done it three weeks in a row with that midfield delivery? You're delusional.
Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.
Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
I can't do much if you can't see, that opposition teams are disregarding Carlisle as an effective forward threat. You go on about midfield delivery - We are ranked well in the top 8 for Kicking DE and we are in the top half of the comp for marks inside 50 per game. So the stats indicate that kicking has been solid and that we can find marking targets in the forward 50. The way some have been carrying on, you'd think that Carlisle has been matched on Jack Regan, Steven Silvagni and Matthew Scarlett for the last 3 weeks. The only way Hurley wouldn't have kicked lots of goals in the last three weeks, would be because Bulldogs would have played Morris on him and Brisbane would have played Patfull on him.
"refused", what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn't rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with "see that's what good forwards do against weak opponents" despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn't kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these "weak" opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon's midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy's bag to Carlisle's output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
The point is that you don't expect Kennedy to kick 11-0. You expect that he would have a good game playing on a Frost or Corr. Kennedy did the job ( as a quality forward ) on inexperienced opponents. I am not talking about one isolated game for Carlisle in 2014 - I am discussing a pattern of performances in 2014, one in which Carlisle's output is comparable to Hurley's output as a forward. There is also the issue that Carlisle's lack of performance, is not supporting JD's development. JD is forced to shed too much of the burden, including getting matched up on better defenders,whereas as when Hurley played forward he nearly always got the number one defender. Your argument about Dale Morris is redundant because when JD dominated M.Talis, the Bulldogs switched Morris on JD. As far as I know JD is taller than Carlisle.
Anyway we can continue the fiction that Carlisle has played against Jack Regan every week.
Hurley has only kicked 5 goals in a game a couple of times, and you think he'd have done it three weeks in a row with that midfield delivery? You're delusional.
Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.
Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
And we clearly rate Stanley better than Reiwoldt as we put Hooker on Stanley.
Well you imagine that Hurley has better endurance than Hurley, though it was a mistake, not to rotate Hurley and Hooker off Riewoldt. And Hooker and Hurley have shared the responsibilities on the number one key forward which makes sense seeing they are roughly equal in ability. Whereas there is a big difference ( at this stage ) in ability/performance between Patfull and Gardiner and Morris and Stringer.
It’s the movement from the backline/midfield that kills our forward line. The maintain possession style might work at times but all it’s doing is slow movement of the footy which forces is to bomb it in. Fark being a forward in that kind of setup.
I have faith that we will fix it at the right time of the year, possibly when Bomber gets us to play a more physically taxing version of our current style (which I believe we’ve already seen in the 1st qtr on Anzac Day). So I wouldn’t worry about forward line personnel at this stage.
Ah, so you're changing your argument. Your argument was that Hurley would have kicked 15 goals over the last few weeks. Which is patently ridiculous. Now it's that he'd have kicked more than Hurley. Are you going to admit you were making a silly statement?I can't do much if you can't see, that opposition teams are disregarding Carlisle as an effective forward threat. You go on about midfield delivery - We are ranked well in the top 8 for Kicking DE and we are in the top half of the comp for marks inside 50 per game. So the stats indicate that kicking has been solid and that we can find marking targets in the forward 50. The way some have been carrying on, you'd think that Carlisle has been matched on Jack Regan, Steven Silvagni and Matthew Scarlett for the last 3 weeks. The only way Hurley wouldn't have kicked lots of goals in the last three weeks, would be because Bulldogs would have played Morris on him and Brisbane would have played Patfull on him.Hurley has only kicked 5 goals in a game a couple of times, and you think he'd have done it three weeks in a row with that midfield delivery? You're delusional.Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
And who cares where our DE or I50 marking is. How much of that happened while Carlisle was in the ruck? The point is how we did the last three weeks. Given against Brissie our DE was bout 65% at one stage, somehow I suspect it wasn't top 8 over the last 3 weeks.
BTW, who has argued that Carlisle has been on good opponents over the last few weeks, or even that he hasn't played poorly? You're strawman was spotted.
"refused", what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn't rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with "see that's what good forwards do against weak opponents" despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn't kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these "weak" opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon's midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy's bag to Carlisle's output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
The point is that you don't expect Kennedy to kick 11-0. You expect that he would have a good game playing on a Frost or Corr. Kennedy did the job ( as a quality forward ) on inexperienced opponents. I am not talking about one isolated game for Carlisle in 2014 - I am discussing a pattern of performances in 2014, one in which Carlisle's output is comparable to Hurley's output as a forward. There is also the issue that Carlisle's lack of performance, is not supporting JD's development. JD is forced to shed too much of the burden, including getting matched up on better defenders,whereas as when Hurley played forward he nearly always got the number one defender. Your argument about Dale Morris is redundant because when JD dominated M.Talis, the Bulldogs switched Morris on JD. As far as I know JD is taller than Carlisle.
Anyway we can continue the fiction that Carlisle has played against Jack Regan every week.
I think the problem is that the point you are making is so trivial and obvious that most respondents assume you are trying to make some different, more interesting or intelligent point.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument is that Carlisle has been quite ineffective for several weeks (well, the entire year just about), in spite of relatively inexperienced or low quality opposition, and as a consequence opposition sides are not too worried about him.
I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this contention. To be clear, what I mean is that no one (sane) has argued that Carlisle is going well, and no one has claimed that his opponents have been high quality. On this line of discussion you are not only attacking straw men, you are beating them to a dusty, shredded mess.
The two other threads to your (irritatingly repetitive) posts are:
- Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
- Carlisle's failure to contribute has put more pressure on JD.
The Josh Kennedy point is either a total furphy or it is redundant. If all you are saying is that good forwards kick goals, therefore Carlisle is not (currently) a good forward, then it is redundant to your primary argument. If you mean to draw something new from the comparison, then it is specious at best. Comparing Kennedy in the WC side at home against Frost of GWS to Carlisle in the EFC side against a run of three different opponents shows vastly more differences than similarities, both by number and by relevance.
Differences:
- Kennedy is in his 9th year of AFL, almost all as a foward, whereas Carlisle is entering his 5th year with almost no time as a forward at senior level;
- In case you missed it, the point here is that Kennedy has had time to develop and prove himself as a quality forward, whereas Carlisle has not.
- WC were dominant across the ground, whereas we have only been dominant in our defensive half (if at all);
- No, I don't care what the stats say - use your eyes, the service to any of our forwards has been inconsistent or worse.
- Kennedy is in good form, and had a really good day, whereas Carlisle has lost confidence.
- Plus, as a side note, different players, different clubs, different days, etc.
Similarities:
- Both were opposed to relatively inexperienced, lower quality defenders.
As for the "pressure on JD" point, I'm not sure where you are going with it. As an observation, it is more or less accurate. What do you propose to do about it?
Now that I have wasted my time responding in detail to your straw man genocide, please, kindly, shut up.
"refused", what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn't rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with "see that's what good forwards do against weak opponents" despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn't kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these "weak" opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon's midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy's bag to Carlisle's output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
The point is that you don't expect Kennedy to kick 11-0. You expect that he would have a good game playing on a Frost or Corr. Kennedy did the job ( as a quality forward ) on inexperienced opponents. I am not talking about one isolated game for Carlisle in 2014 - I am discussing a pattern of performances in 2014, one in which Carlisle's output is comparable to Hurley's output as a forward. There is also the issue that Carlisle's lack of performance, is not supporting JD's development. JD is forced to shed too much of the burden, including getting matched up on better defenders,whereas as when Hurley played forward he nearly always got the number one defender. Your argument about Dale Morris is redundant because when JD dominated M.Talis, the Bulldogs switched Morris on JD. As far as I know JD is taller than Carlisle.
Anyway we can continue the fiction that Carlisle has played against Jack Regan every week.
I think the problem is that the point you are making is so trivial and obvious that most respondents assume you are trying to make some different, more interesting or intelligent point.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument is that Carlisle has been quite ineffective for several weeks (well, the entire year just about), in spite of relatively inexperienced or low quality opposition, and as a consequence opposition sides are not too worried about him.
I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this contention. To be clear, what I mean is that no one (sane) has argued that Carlisle is going well, and no one has claimed that his opponents have been high quality. On this line of discussion you are not only attacking straw men, you are beating them to a dusty, shredded mess.
The two other threads to your (irritatingly repetitive) posts are:
- Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
- Carlisle's failure to contribute has put more pressure on JD.
The Josh Kennedy point is either a total furphy or it is redundant. If all you are saying is that good forwards kick goals, therefore Carlisle is not (currently) a good forward, then it is redundant to your primary argument. If you mean to draw something new from the comparison, then it is specious at best. Comparing Kennedy in the WC side at home against Frost of GWS to Carlisle in the EFC side against a run of three different opponents shows vastly more differences than similarities, both by number and by relevance.
Differences:
- Kennedy is in his 9th year of AFL, almost all as a foward, whereas Carlisle is entering his 5th year with almost no time as a forward at senior level;
- In case you missed it, the point here is that Kennedy has had time to develop and prove himself as a quality forward, whereas Carlisle has not.
- WC were dominant across the ground, whereas we have only been dominant in our defensive half (if at all);
- No, I don't care what the stats say - use your eyes, the service to any of our forwards has been inconsistent or worse.
- Kennedy is in good form, and had a really good day, whereas Carlisle has lost confidence.
- Plus, as a side note, different players, different clubs, different days, etc.
Similarities:
- Both were opposed to relatively inexperienced, lower quality defenders.
As for the "pressure on JD" point, I'm not sure where you are going with it. As an observation, it is more or less accurate. What do you propose to do about it?
Now that I have wasted my time responding in detail to your straw man genocide, please, kindly, shut up.
Now that is all very well reasoned but why do you insist on maintaining the fiction that Carlisle has been on Jack Regen each week?
I wanted to have Carlisle forward, and I would normally think that the games to date are nowhere near enough to determine if Carlisle can make it as a forward or not.
HOWEVER, if this is completely doing Carlisle's head in. If whether due to the swap or personal issues he is in no place to be doing this, then maybe he needs to be moved back. Only the coaching staff would no if this is the case, or just the story been created by some fans/commentators/media to explain some of what has happened. It could all be rubbish.
The problem is, if we move Carlisle anywhere (whether VFL or backline), we need somebody to support JD up forward. Even when Belly is fit we probably still want another tall forward. So the choice is pretty much switch one of Hurley/Hooker forward (both of which has a heap of issues), have an undersized forwardline, or try someone like Steinberg. Not good solutions any of them.
I agree with you for the most part. Carlisle needs a few weeks out of the spot light to practice his forward play and maybe get some confidence.
I think Steinberg could be ok as a replacement for a few weeks if we have him and Ambrose playing there. But It would only be for a few and we would need belly to come in soon, especially as we might need to rest Joe for a week soon.
Ultimately though non of this is a solution, Carlsile needs to step up, and to do that he needs to stop having hissy fits and worrying about where he thinks he should play and just go out there and smash packs. Don't worry about the finer points just hit the footy a full pace and start a body count, it's certainly one way to get you team going when you not hitting the scoreboard.
So you want him to start playing like Hurley :)
"refused", what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn't rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with "see that's what good forwards do against weak opponents" despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn't kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these "weak" opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon's midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy's bag to Carlisle's output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
The point is that you don't expect Kennedy to kick 11-0. You expect that he would have a good game playing on a Frost or Corr. Kennedy did the job ( as a quality forward ) on inexperienced opponents. I am not talking about one isolated game for Carlisle in 2014 - I am discussing a pattern of performances in 2014, one in which Carlisle's output is comparable to Hurley's output as a forward. There is also the issue that Carlisle's lack of performance, is not supporting JD's development. JD is forced to shed too much of the burden, including getting matched up on better defenders,whereas as when Hurley played forward he nearly always got the number one defender. Your argument about Dale Morris is redundant because when JD dominated M.Talis, the Bulldogs switched Morris on JD. As far as I know JD is taller than Carlisle.
Anyway we can continue the fiction that Carlisle has played against Jack Regan every week.
I think the problem is that the point you are making is so trivial and obvious that most respondents assume you are trying to make some different, more interesting or intelligent point.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument is that Carlisle has been quite ineffective for several weeks (well, the entire year just about), in spite of relatively inexperienced or low quality opposition, and as a consequence opposition sides are not too worried about him.
I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this contention. To be clear, what I mean is that no one (sane) has argued that Carlisle is going well, and no one has claimed that his opponents have been high quality. On this line of discussion you are not only attacking straw men, you are beating them to a dusty, shredded mess.
The two other threads to your (irritatingly repetitive) posts are:
- Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
- Carlisle's failure to contribute has put more pressure on JD.
The Josh Kennedy point is either a total furphy or it is redundant. If all you are saying is that good forwards kick goals, therefore Carlisle is not (currently) a good forward, then it is redundant to your primary argument. If you mean to draw something new from the comparison, then it is specious at best. Comparing Kennedy in the WC side at home against Frost of GWS to Carlisle in the EFC side against a run of three different opponents shows vastly more differences than similarities, both by number and by relevance.
Differences:
- Kennedy is in his 9th year of AFL, almost all as a foward, whereas Carlisle is entering his 5th year with almost no time as a forward at senior level;
- In case you missed it, the point here is that Kennedy has had time to develop and prove himself as a quality forward, whereas Carlisle has not.
- WC were dominant across the ground, whereas we have only been dominant in our defensive half (if at all);
- No, I don't care what the stats say - use your eyes, the service to any of our forwards has been inconsistent or worse.
- Kennedy is in good form, and had a really good day, whereas Carlisle has lost confidence.
- Plus, as a side note, different players, different clubs, different days, etc.
Similarities:
- Both were opposed to relatively inexperienced, lower quality defenders.
As for the "pressure on JD" point, I'm not sure where you are going with it. As an observation, it is more or less accurate. What do you propose to do about it?
Now that I have wasted my time responding in detail to your straw man genocide, please, kindly, shut up.
Simple. Move Hurley forward, and Carlisle back. Hurley will likely take the best defender, allowing Daniher a lesser opponent. If the best defender continues to go to Daniher, Hurley has the luxury of playing on a lesser opponent, something that rarely happened when he was playing as a forward.
All of this is noise, when the equation is quite simple. Carlisle is a better defender than Hurley. Hurley is a better forward than Carlisle. I think we have seen enough evidence to confirm this.
I’d like to see us do a package deal for Walker and Kersten from Geelong, no idea what they would want for them both though.
"refused", what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn't rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with "see that's what good forwards do against weak opponents" despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn't kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these "weak" opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon's midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy's bag to Carlisle's output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
The point is that you don't expect Kennedy to kick 11-0. You expect that he would have a good game playing on a Frost or Corr. Kennedy did the job ( as a quality forward ) on inexperienced opponents. I am not talking about one isolated game for Carlisle in 2014 - I am discussing a pattern of performances in 2014, one in which Carlisle's output is comparable to Hurley's output as a forward. There is also the issue that Carlisle's lack of performance, is not supporting JD's development. JD is forced to shed too much of the burden, including getting matched up on better defenders,whereas as when Hurley played forward he nearly always got the number one defender. Your argument about Dale Morris is redundant because when JD dominated M.Talis, the Bulldogs switched Morris on JD. As far as I know JD is taller than Carlisle.
Anyway we can continue the fiction that Carlisle has played against Jack Regan every week.
I think the problem is that the point you are making is so trivial and obvious that most respondents assume you are trying to make some different, more interesting or intelligent point.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument is that Carlisle has been quite ineffective for several weeks (well, the entire year just about), in spite of relatively inexperienced or low quality opposition, and as a consequence opposition sides are not too worried about him.
I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this contention. To be clear, what I mean is that no one (sane) has argued that Carlisle is going well, and no one has claimed that his opponents have been high quality. On this line of discussion you are not only attacking straw men, you are beating them to a dusty, shredded mess.
The two other threads to your (irritatingly repetitive) posts are:
- Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
- Carlisle's failure to contribute has put more pressure on JD.
The Josh Kennedy point is either a total furphy or it is redundant. If all you are saying is that good forwards kick goals, therefore Carlisle is not (currently) a good forward, then it is redundant to your primary argument. If you mean to draw something new from the comparison, then it is specious at best. Comparing Kennedy in the WC side at home against Frost of GWS to Carlisle in the EFC side against a run of three different opponents shows vastly more differences than similarities, both by number and by relevance.
Differences:
- Kennedy is in his 9th year of AFL, almost all as a foward, whereas Carlisle is entering his 5th year with almost no time as a forward at senior level;
- In case you missed it, the point here is that Kennedy has had time to develop and prove himself as a quality forward, whereas Carlisle has not.
- WC were dominant across the ground, whereas we have only been dominant in our defensive half (if at all);
- No, I don't care what the stats say - use your eyes, the service to any of our forwards has been inconsistent or worse.
- Kennedy is in good form, and had a really good day, whereas Carlisle has lost confidence.
- Plus, as a side note, different players, different clubs, different days, etc.
Similarities:
- Both were opposed to relatively inexperienced, lower quality defenders.
As for the "pressure on JD" point, I'm not sure where you are going with it. As an observation, it is more or less accurate. What do you propose to do about it?
Now that I have wasted my time responding in detail to your straw man genocide, please, kindly, shut up.
Simple. Move Hurley forward, and Carlisle back. Hurley will likely take the best defender, allowing Daniher a lesser opponent. If the best defender continues to go to Daniher, Hurley has the luxury of playing on a lesser opponent, something that rarely happened when he was playing as a forward.
All of this is noise, when the equation is quite simple. Carlisle is a better defender than Hurley. Hurley is a better forward than Carlisle. I think we have seen enough evidence to confirm this.
Carlisle is not a better defender than Hurley. I doubt that will be a popular view, and of course it is impossible to substantiate, but there it is.
He did really well for 10-12 rounds, mostly by playing off his opponent and beating them to the drop of the ball, but he was getting found out on leading forwards (eg Waite). I cannot remember any specific instances, but I imagine he would also have trouble with a strong body-on-body forward (see him outbodied by Cheney as evidence). I would expect other sides to exploit these weaknesses through matchups more and more. Of course, he could improve on the weaknesses, but I believe they are real.
Hurley can play on leading forwards and wrestlers (up to a point - he is not as strong as Cloke, for example), and can stand under the high ball. His disposal out of the backline is a greater asset than Carlisle's, although that is not to downplay that Carlisle is also skillful and creative.
So in defense I have Hurley >= Carlisle, at a minimum.
In attack, a significant swing factor in the argument comes from your choice of timeframes.
On a few occasions since 2011, Hurley has put together 4-6 rounds where his statistics show that he was clearly a better forward than Carlisle has been in his first 8 rounds this year. However, there have also been patches where he has been, statistically, almost as bad. Rounds 7-14 from last year, for example. Rounds 8-11 from 2012, as well, and rounds 4-7 from 2011. (Actually, I am probably exaggerating a little here, as Hurley managed modest to reasonable possession tallies in most of these games, but his goal output was very low.)
You will probably say "use your eyes, not your stats sheet". My memory for games is not as good as some, and I probably missed some of them, but ok... Hurley had several very effective games as a forward and could be exciting and dangerous in that role, but never consistently, and I distinctly remember thinking to myself that we needed more out of our 'marquis' forward on several occasions - perhaps more often than I was impressed.
You might also say that the spells of low output came after injuries, which he needed time to regain his form. That would not be a good argument for two reasons:
- He often got injured, and the most likely future for him as a forward would be to continue to get injured, so his time out of form would be a recurring problem and must be taken into account;
- If you are willing to accept some amount of time for Hurley to regain form after injury, why are you so unwilling to allow time for Carlisle to both find form and learn the role, particularly if the talk of out-of-football influences is true.
So on balance, Hurley (2011-2013) > Carlisle (2014, rounds 1-8), but to me it is far from clear that Hurley is a better long term prospect as a forward than Carlisle, in spite of the latter's insipid recent form. As far as I have seen, none of the 'Hurley forward' camp have addressed the arguments that Hurley has demonstrated serious limitations as a forward despite his years (not weeks) of opportunity to improve, most particularly:
- Marking in his hands (which for whatever reason he seems to be able to do in defense, but almost never did in attack);
- Goal-kicking yips;
- Leading patterns (often to the pocket, often to the same place as the other marking forward).
Yes point 2 might resolve itself as it has for others, and point 3 could have been the coach's fault, but that is really just nit-picking when you remember that it went on for at least 3 years (2010 was only his second year, so it might be fair to discount it). Meanwhile, at the risk of becoming boring, Carlisle has had 8 rounds as a designated forward, two (three?) of which were interrupted by ruck responsibilities, possibly amid extenuating circumstances outside football.
So, no, I absolutely don't think we have "seen enough evidence to confirm" your equation.
I think, to this point, the very real benefit to the move of Hurley back is that he has played 8 games in a row without any of the injury hurdles that have upset his rhythym in the past. It was becoming a critical threat with the capacity to stall or derail his career imho. The sample size is small but I think he is growing by the week, and his overhead marking has returned.
Re: Carlisle forward: was he that bad in the first two rounds? I haven’t studied it in detail so that is a genuine question. My recollection is that he started alright but that it was his time in the ruck that threw him right off.
I think, to this point, the very real benefit to the move of Hurley back is that he has played 8 games in a row without any of the injury hurdles that have upset his rhythym in the past. It was becoming a critical threat with the capacity to stall or derail his career imho. The sample size is small but I think he is growing by the week, and his overhead marking has returned.
Re: Carlisle forward: was he that bad in the first two rounds? I haven't studied it in detail so that is a genuine question. My recollection is that he started alright but that it was his time in the ruck that threw him right off.
By 'the move' I take it you mean what happened between 2013 and 2014 in moving Hurley back, not the current Blitz proposal to move him forward again.
I agree. I was always in the Hurley-to-defense camp, and I would oppose any attempt to return him to the forward line. I am less steadfast about Carlisle, though. If by the end of the year he has shown little or no improvement as a forward, and assuming there is no transient and overwhelming reason for that (such as a season-ending injury) then I would support moving him back alongside Hurley and Hooker. The forward line would consist of JD, TBC (60-70%) / Ryder (30-40%), 2 medium-tall marking targets choosing from Winderlich, Ambrose, Hardingham, and Steinberg, 1 resting mid at any given time (esp Watson and Goddard), and 1 small (?).
It would make it difficult to keep Fletcher in the side, but it is not worth worrying about that until he makes up his mind what he would like to do. It would be a little tall down back, but in my mind Hurley is sufficiently good at ground level and he is also better off (injury-wise) trimming down to match up on the third tall or the tallest mid-forward, leaving the principal key forwards to Carlisle and Hooker.
Carlisle’s best footy this year, was when he was rucking.
And for everybody who likes to say that Carlisle’s form last year has been exaggerated, and then talk about how unbelievable Hurley has been in defence this year… Only twice this year has Hurley taken the opposition’s best forward. And he got well beaten both times.
Personally, I’d love them both in defence. But if you had to pick one of them to play out of position up forward, I can’t see how any argument could be made to say that Carlisle is the better option for that.
Carlisle's best footy this year, was when he was rucking.
And for everybody who likes to say that Carlisle's form last year has been exaggerated, and then talk about how unbelievable Hurley has been in defence this year... Only twice this year has Hurley taken the opposition's best forward. And he got well beaten both times.
Personally, I'd love them both in defence. But if you had to pick one of them to play out of position up forward, I can't see how any argument could be made to say that Carlisle is the better option for that.
He is not the best option now.
He has the potential to be the best option in the future.
Hurley's capabilities up forward are well known. Only short sighted, impatient fools believe that Carlisle's capabilities have been completely exposed. As a former Myers basher (IIRC), I guess you have form in this regard (EDIT :P).
Carlisle's best footy this year, was when he was rucking.
And for everybody who likes to say that Carlisle's form last year has been exaggerated, and then talk about how unbelievable Hurley has been in defence this year... Only twice this year has Hurley taken the opposition's best forward. And he got well beaten both times.
Personally, I'd love them both in defence. But if you had to pick one of them to play out of position up forward, I can't see how any argument could be made to say that Carlisle is the better option for that.He is not the best option now.
He has the potential to be the best option in the future.
Hurley's capabilities up forward are well known. Only short sighted, impatient fools believe that Carlisle's capabilities have been completely exposed. As a former Myers basher (IIRC), I guess you have form in this regard (EDIT :P).
I certainly don't think Carlisle's capabilities up forward have been completely exposed. I'd hope not anyway. Even doubters like myself never thought he'd be this bad up forward. I'm not sure why he has 'potential' to be the best option in the future though, based on what exactly? Blind hope? And as I've said before, I'll bet anything you want that the first thing Hird does when he returns, is put Carlisle back. So long term is irrelevant in my opinion.
And since you brought up the Myers dig for no apparent reason.... my issues with Myers were when he was playing in defence. He was rubbish. And it wouldn't have mattered if you put 10 years into him as a defender, he was never going to be one. He was always a midfielder playing in the wrong spot. Much like Carlisle is a defender, playing in the wrong spot. And yes, Hurley was the same, but he was at least serviceable.
There is no obvious answer to this dilemma, I understand that. We can't play 3 talls and Fletch in defence, so somebody has to play out of position in the forward line for the time being. It's just that Carlisle is not the best option for that, clearly.