Recruitment of a forward

Football Discussion Trade week Duursma head in
121

 

 

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. 

 

Carlisle's potential is based on his marking ability, his skill and decision making, general smarts (which admittedly have not, so far, translated to forward smarts), and mobility/athleticism. These are most, if not all of the tools to be at least better as a forward than Hurley. Converting the potential into reality depends on whether he has both the ability and the will to apply himself to learn and do what is required in the role, principally how hard and often he has to run and in which patterns and timing.

 

If you are right about Hird's intentions, and if it is a fait accompli that Hird will return, then I would agree that it is pointless to cultivate Carlisle's future as a forward at the expense of the team's performance in 2014. I am not as confident as you that both of these outcomes will eventuate. Could be Hurley keeps improving, or Carlisle shows something, and Hird changes his mind. Could be he never comes back.

 

The Myer's dig was a red herring - just a bit of good-natured ribbing. Whether it is you or anyone else, though, the point is only that there is a psychological bias towards extrapolating the present into the future and excessively discounting the possibility that the trend will change. I believe that anyone who uses Carlisle's performance in 8 weeks to date to argue that he can't make it as a forward has been overcome by this bias. Of course, it is not the case that the opposite is true (i.e., it is not logically consistent that his recent poor performance guarantees he will get better). The fact is that we do not have enough evidence to make a confident determination, and on balance the upside from having Carlisle evolve into a good-to-great forward is enough to justify persisting into the unknown and accepting the risks*, although that trade-off is getting worse by the week.

 

No there is no obvious answer. Even granting everything that you say, I am not sure that switching Carlisle and Hurley would be the right thing to do. Hurley has been more consistent, and far less injured so far this year (notwithstanding my long-held view that he has the makings of a champion defender but only an average forward). Maybe that is coincidence, or insufficient sample size, but I would not want to run the risk on that one. It is effectively the reverse of the trade-off for Carlisle: higher risk, lower upside. If they were to abandon the Carlisle-forward experiment, maybe the forward line goes as I described above (JD and TBC/Ryder as the only true talls), and the tall defense gets sorted out on a week-by-week basis, with Carlisle spending at least the first one or two weeks in the VFL.

 

----------------

* This claim depends on how you evaluate the risks. I do not accept that one year out of defense will significantly hamper his development as a defender in the event he is sent back there. I also do not believe the cry-babies around here who claim he will walk out on the club because things haven't all gone his way (especially if/when Hird comes back and says "that was the other guy, from now on I'll look after you"). So the only thing at risk, in my mind, is a few games. As much as we would like to believe that we could contend for the premiership this year, if that is true then it does not rest on the difference between Hurley or Carlisle forward.

122

Good post Bender, and I agree with a fair chunk of it. It’s a complicated issue.

(and yeah, I should have said ‘if’ Hird returns next year. Still plenty of stuff to play out before that happens)

I also agree that one year forward for Carlisle won’t affect him as a defender long term. And yeah, we ain’t winning a flag. To me, the issue is JD. He is going to carry this forward line in years to come, but he needs some support this year. Carlisle isn’t providing that.

And don’t get me wrong, despite my many stated opinions, I don’t think Hurley will ever end up permanently forward either.

They are both defenders.

123

 

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.

 

Sorry yes, I wasn't clear. I meant the original move to the backline.

 

In the event that Carlisle is returned to the backline I agree that it would be Hurley who would have enough flexibility in terms of opponent to assume a Fletch like role however I hadn't considered the potentialities of both Fletch and Hurley being down there in that circumstance. Fletch is pretty exceptional in the agility stakes, even at 39, he might b able to make it work.

 

Edited to clear up imprecise language

124

The more I’ve seen of Hurley in defence this year, the more I’ve thought he’s capable of taking over Fletcher’s ‘third tall’ role. Sure, he’ll never be able to match up on a quick small forward like Fletch can, but you can’t possibly replace that level of flexibility. Fletch is a one-off. But he’d be able to take a medium forward or a resting ruck, and he’s decision making and ball use out of defence will be greatly enhanced by that role.

I still have some doubts, but I’m starting to think that Hooker, Carlisle and Hurley will be able to work together long term. And what a backline that will be.

125

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.
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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?
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.

 

 

My post was referencing that Carlisle is hardly likely to turn his form around ( he may come out and dominate this week )  when he surely will be matched against better credentialled opponents. I would be shocked if Hurley performed at the same level as Carlisle in the last three weeks ig the roles were identical. But you can continue to blame the midfield for carlisle's woes or any other forward that's played since lloyf and Lucas - Even though we have a nearly new midfield ( and a better midfield ) since Lloyd and Lucas.  

126

 

 

"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:

  1. Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
  2. 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.

 

 

Kennedy has been in average form. A couple of good games mixed with average games and one shocker. Anyway he performed strongly against an inexperienced opponent as you would expect. 

127

 

 

 

 

"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:

  1. Josh Kennedy kicked 11.0 goals against a weak opponent;
  2. 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:
  1. 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;
  2. 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:
  1. Marking in his hands (which for whatever reason he seems to be able to do in defense, but almost never did in attack);
  2. Goal-kicking yips;
  3. 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.

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you Bender, but I agree with 90% of your post. Have no doubt that Hurley is a better defender than Carlisle - This is partially because Hurley can play on a wider ranger of opponents.

 

Believe that Hurley is a better forward than Carlisle, primarily because he is a better score assist forward. I believe the best forwards kick and create goals. In saying that we are more likely to get a full season from Hurley playing defence.

 

Think that if Carlisle struggles again this week that he will be switched back after the bye - The question then is who plays forward.

128

The more I've seen of Hurley in defence this year, the more I've thought he's capable of taking over Fletcher's 'third tall' role. Sure, he'll never be able to match up on a quick small forward like Fletch can, but you can't possibly replace that level of flexibility. Fletch is a one-off. But he'd be able to take a medium forward or a resting ruck, and he's decision making and ball use out of defence will be greatly enhanced by that role.
I still have some doubts, but I'm starting to think that Hooker, Carlisle and Hurley will be able to work together long term. And what a backline that will be.

 

One of these defenders must play forward. JD is still two years from having a big impact as a forward, T-Bell is still a ruck, Ambrose has played 3 games. Of course this may work if you think we can't win a premiership till 2017/2018.

129

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.

Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
My post was referencing that Carlisle is hardly likely to turn his form around ( he may come out and dominate this week )  when he surely will be matched against better credentialled opponents. I would be shocked if Hurley performed at the same level as Carlisle in the last three weeks ig the roles were identical. But you can continue to blame the midfield for carlisle's woes or any other forward that's played since lloyf and Lucas - Even though we have a nearly new midfield ( and a better midfield ) since Lloyd and Lucas.
Actually, if you re-read your first (and second) post you never make any mention of the fact he will struggle to turn his form around against better opposition. You attacked Carlisle saying that Kennedy would have dined out and Hurley would have kicked 15 across the last 3 games (pre-Sydney). Which is ridiculous.
You've then tried to redefine what you said and back away from it.
130

Its a difficult question regarding Hurley and Carlisle combo, but my beliefs are quite simple, the proof is in the pudding: we were a better team last year with Hurley up forward and Carlisle down back. Hurley has many more facets to his game. He can lead, mark, tackle, put more pressure on than most key forwards, can swing round onto either foot and it a competitor that crashes packs. He is different to Daniher so can compliment him quite well. Carlisle is similar to Daniher thus shouldnt be in the same forward line if possible. I cant see how having Daniher, Carlisle, Bellchambers and Chapman in the same forward line can work at all. The phrase forward pressure would become extinct out at the True Value Solar centre, when its such a huge part of the game now... just look at paul puopolo and the Hawks 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.
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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?
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.

 

My post was referencing that Carlisle is hardly likely to turn his form around ( he may come out and dominate this week )  when he surely will be matched against better credentialled opponents. I would be shocked if Hurley performed at the same level as Carlisle in the last three weeks ig the roles were identical. But you can continue to blame the midfield for carlisle's woes or any other forward that's played since lloyf and Lucas - Even though we have a nearly new midfield ( and a better midfield ) since Lloyd and Lucas.

 

Actually, if you re-read your first (and second) post you never make any mention of the fact he will struggle to turn his form around against better opposition. You attacked Carlisle saying that Kennedy would have dined out and Hurley would have kicked 15 across the last 3 games (pre-Sydney). Which is ridiculous.
You've then tried to redefine what you said and back away from it.

 

 

I have posted in other threads in fact after round 7 or 8 probably in the DF Hangar that life will get tougher for Carlisle. That is not so relevant for this thread.  

132

Ants and yaco are arguing about semantics, this will be entertaining.

133

People who are pointing to fleeting moments of success when Carlisle was swung forward last year, consider this:

As a forward he was a poor target, recording the second-worst retention rate of the top 120 targets in the competition.

134

Jack Riewoldt?

 

Will he be at the Tigs next year?

135

Go Patton

136

Wouldn't mind us having a crack at Kristian Jaksch from the Giants - there's an article in the Hun about GWS and Sydney fringe players today. He can apparently play both ends (not that we need more of them) but I remember him being very highly rated for his contested marking.  

 

No doubt the Giants will be pr*cks about all their trading deals and demand overs (which could be a problem when we don't have any picks) but I hope we're at least having a look.

137

If we want cheap, Tim Membrey from the Swans. Hasn't played a game for them yet but 24 goals in 7 matches in their version of VFL (excuse my ignorance) including a bag of eight and can run up to 15km in a game. He's massive in terms of bulk but not overly tall.

 

Well worth a look.

138

 

If we want cheap, Tim Membrey from the Swans. Hasn’t played a game for them yet but 24 goals in 7 matches in their version of VFL (excuse my ignorance) including a bag of eight and can runs up to 15km in a game. He’s massive in terms of bulk but not overly tall.
 
Well worth a look.


Agree that he’s worth a look. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on the move at season’s end.
139

People who are pointing to fleeting moments of success when Carlisle was swung forward last year, consider this:

As a forward he was a poor target, recording the second-worst retention rate of the top 120 targets in the competition.

Is that "targets inside 50"? Cos I reckon at least a third of his goals (one against Freo anyway) he kicked from set shots outside 50.
All six were pretty impressive though, not surprised some had him slated for 50 ish...
140

it's obvious, Jeremy Howe!