Key talking points from AFL Round 5

Mattyb - Why on earth would I want DonFreo back - it has been a welcome relief to have him gone. As to what happenned to him I assume he unleashed his usual abuse and vitriol and got reported and banned - congrats to the moderator if that true, after all this is a bloke who has openly admitted to tr olling.

Col - I think Malthouse has much more say over Selection than he does over recruiting. Given we agree Malthouse got 3 of 22 players wrong last week (by a large margin) I see that a massive indictment on his ability. And I agree we can't play all the young blokes but it is better to get as many of them game time now when Judd, Carrazzo & Simpson are still there then throw them in when they are gone. By the way that is why I am against trading Murphy or Gibbs - it would just expose too many youngsters with not enough sneior players to help them out.

Your selfish and all about you macca #bringbackdonfreo stand up for what is right mate #bringbackdonfreo You have not said boo,do you even know what has happened to wit and free speech??? #bringbackdonfreo

So what? Look ahead not backwards.

Just checked the stats: the last time West Coast beat a side that was in the Final 8 at the end of the season (including Carlton in 2013) was the Elimination Final in 2012 (against North Melbourne – 96 points). They did defeat Essendon in Round 20, 2013, but Essendon were banished from the finals and officially came ninth. The figure is actually 0–19 (or 1–19 if you exclude Carlton and include Essendon). We can't update this figure until the end of the season, but it's a pretty lousy statistic. You'd expect a team that has finished in the bottom half of the table to not have many victories against Final 8 teams, but to have 0 (or 1) is abysmal. For games against teams not making the finals, they've achieved 20–5 (or 19–6) which means, as many critics are saying, they're ‘flat-track bullies’.

WC are far better placed than just about every team that missed the finals last year. The Saints beat Freo with how many players resting for finals? Some context would be nice so I added it for you. Keep quoting the stats, it's just a matter of time till they breakthrough.

Macca, I did not agree with the selection of Warnock on Friday night in front of Casboult. I wish the selection committee would explain that decision. I also agree that Graham should be given more senior games. I know that MM is the senior coach and probably has the final say but it is a group of selectors that decide the make up of the team and I have to believe that they know what they are doing. The young kids are the future and they need time to develop. I like all supporters want to see what they can offer but I also believe you can't play all the kids at the same time. If you play them before they are ready you can possibly set their development backwards. Having said that I just can't get past the continual selection of Ellard and Armfield.

1 more thing Col I would be interested in your answers to some of my questions from earlier in particular how you reconcile us rebuilding with Micks selection?

Sorry Col wasn't ignoring you just couldn't get on the site this Arvo. On who would replace him I don't know maybe that bloke from Hawthorn who replaced Clarke last year but it should be remembered that at the same time Malhouse took over a Carlton side just out of the 8 Ken Hinkley took over Port at the bottom and in all sorts. Also Alan Richardson had the Saints playing great footy on the weekend without Riewoldt and Montagna and he was at Carlton in 2012.

Okay Macca I guess we disagree about the future of MM at Carlton but as I asked who are you going to replace him with. Given that tha President and CEO have publicly stated we are now in a rebuilding stage which potential coaches are out there that can do that. It is not going to be a quick fix so you would need to give someone a minimum of 5 years on the understanding that we are rebuilding. Are there potential coaches out there that are prepared to do that. None come to mind.

Col – the 2009 draft was terribly shallow here are the top 20 for that draft; 1 Scully 2 Trengrove 3 Martin 4 Morabito 5 Cu nnington 6 Rohan 7 Sheppard 8 Butcher 9 Moore 10 Melksham 11 Gysberts (Carlton swapped this pick for McLean) 12 Lucas 13 Talia 14 Jetta 15 Howard 16 Pittard 17 Menzel 18 Tapscott 19 Griffiths 20 Fyfe Now outside of Talia, Fyfe (who Freo used their second pick on), Cu nnington & Martin there is no one that would make the blues any better in that top 20 and a lot of players that are complete busts. And yes our recruiting has been better under Malthouse (although he hasn’t had compromised drafts) but the recruiting department is bigger and better funded now and it’s separate from the Coach so I don’t see that as a reason to keep him. And somehow despite better recruiting since Malthouse arrived here we are playing worse with the same core group. If you look at my comments from as recently as Friday I agreed with you Col – but after the terrible selections for Friday night and watching another dismal performance that while a lot of it was player performance again highlighted what a dreadful game style Malthouse has us playing the camels back broke. If he was getting game into Graham, Casboult, Buckley et el I could see some rationale but to talk short term pain for long term gain but still play the 28 year old Armfield makes no sense.

Col - the 2009 draft was terribly shallow here are the top 20 for that draft; 1 Scully 2 Trengrove 3 Martin 4 Morabito 5 Cunnington 6 Rohna 7 Sheppard 8 Butcher 9 Moore 10 Melksham 11 Gysberts (Carlton swapped this pick for McLean) 12 Lucas 13 Talia 14 Jetta 15 Howard 16 Pittard 17 Menzel 18 Tapscott 19 Griffiths 20 Fyfe Now outside of Talia, Fyfe (who Freo used their second pick on), Cunnington & Martin there is no one that would make the blues any better in that top 20 and a lot of players that are complete busts. And yes our recruiting has been better under Malthouse (although he hasn't had compromised drafts) but the recruiting department is bigger and better funded now and it's separate from the Coach so I don't see that as a reason to keep him. And somehow despite better recruiting since Malthouse arrived here we are playing worse with the same core group. If you look at my comments from as recently as Friday I agreed with you Col - but after the terrible selections for Friday night and watching another dismal performance that while a lot of it was player performance again highlighted what a dreadful game style Malthouse has us playing the camels back broke. If he was getting game into Graham, Casboult, Buckley et el I could see some rationale but to talk short term pain for long term gain but still play the 28 year old Armfield makes no sense.

Macca since Malthouse has arrived our drafting has been better. 2 that you mention Docherty and Whiley have been drafted under MM. Lucas may have had a few good early games but overall was a flop. If we had been better at the draft in 2009 we could have had 3 or 4 players with 100 game experience. Betts was never going to stay as he wanted to go home and even you have said previously that Waite was not going to be a great loss. The point I am trying to make Macca is that a lot of people are saying sack MM but no one is saying who they can replace him with. I am saying keep him for the next few years and let him build a list that is going to take us forward. Short term pain for long term gain.

Col - DO you rmember Lucas's first half a dozen games under Ratten beofre he did his hamstring? But yes those drafts were poor for the blues but as you say 2 of the three were compromised (which makes it harder to recruit) and if you look at who we have on the list now from those drafts you have Docherty who went 12 in 2011, Dylan Buckley who we got from Father son in 2011, Mark Whiley from the 2010 Draft, Bell who we got as a rookie in 2011 and Casboult who we got as a rookie in 2010 - so they weren't total busts (if you include those traded in since so their isn't a massive whole in the list anymore). More importantly is who is still there from 2012 and who has been moved on - Malthouse let Laidler go for nothing, Garlett for pick 60 something, Betts was essentially a swap for Thomas and Waite walked under free agency for nothing - however we still have essentially the same midfield - still have Henderson up forward - still have Jamison down back, still have Walker, Yarran & Simpson - the key planks are still the same as 2012 and we have had 3 years of drafts & trades since whihc have brought in some quality in Menzel, Cripps et el but we are still going backwards - the questions I asked still stand.

Macca have a look at the 2009, 2010 and 2011 drafts and tell me that we were ever going to go forward with that list of recruits. I think of about 15 picks there may be 3 remaining. I know the 2010 and 2011 were compromised but in 2009 we took Lucas, Davies, Kerr and Jacobs and then gave Jacobs away, so none are at Carlton today. Under Ratten we did play an attractive brand of football but we were all attack and no defence which will win you some games but not enough. We also had a better forward line back then too.

Col - I accept the list has limitations but in 2010 the blues won 11 games, in 2011 it was 14, in 2012 despite massive injury toll we won 11 and then Ratten was sacked. In 2013 under Malthouse we won 11 games with Malthouse having limited to no input into the draft or recruiting for that season, 2014 it was 7 games but being competitive it most games and 2015 we are not competitive and look like going further down the ladder. Now the questions that have to be asked are how much worse is the 2015 list than the 2011 list? Why is it worse? Under whose tenure did it become worse? Also under Ratten we played an attractive attacking style of football - under Malthouse we play a stodgy style where we constantly kick it long to a contest, around the boundary and have our forward splaying so high that when we break from half back we constantly have to wait for the forwards to get back (allowing defenders to flood our forward 50) or simply bomb it to the opposition defenders. The question has to be asked - is this really the best game plan for our side? Then we get to selection - we are being told that we are rebuilding yet Armfield gets a game over Graham? Casboult is the best marking target for the long bomb game plan yet misses round 1 then gets dropped for last week because "he is lacking confidence" and then played as a ruckman in the 2's instead of a forward? Buckley had to wait until Yarran got suspended for his chance and I wouldn't be surprised if they drop him this week which will continue his run of 1 game dropped, 3 games dropped & 3 games dropped! We also have a situation where we play 2 defensive forwards (Armifield & Ellard) & 2 midfield taggers meaning 25% of the team outside the back 6 is playing defensively plus on the weekend we play Wood & Warnock (neither of which offer much up forward) and we wonder why we can't score goals. So yes the list has issues and until Friday night I was happy to let Malthouse get another couple of years so we don't repeat the mistake we made with Ratten but the evidence is mounting that Malthouse is using a game plan that is 5 years out of date and for the 3rd year in a row refusing to play enough young players.

Eagles 0–21 against top 8 sides over the past two years? (do you meant the top 8 teams at the end of each season? GWS were second before Round 5). That's a very damning statistic. Every team has a bad week, but the Swans were woeful. Sure, the Bulldogs played incredibly well, but some of the Swans' backline blunders were incredible. Fremantle definitely are the team at the moment. Who can stop them? Well, any other team on their day can, but hard to see where that might happen. The season is still a work in progress, but Fremantle tops, Port are coming. I still think it's Fremantle, Port, Hawthorn and Sydney as the main contenders.

Hard to know where to start with Malthouse. 715 games is a remarkable achievement, but perhaps it should have stopped at 664, when he lost the grand final with Collingwood in 2011. Coaching is similar to playing. After a certain age, you don't necessarily get better. I think the year out of coaching in 2012 probably had a big effect on Malthouse, similar to a player retiring, taking a year out of football, and then deciding to make a comeback. It rarely works in modern football (Tony Lockett in 2002?). The players are skillful enough, but just don't seem to be enjoying their football at all. Something is definitely wrong at Carlton – perhaps Malthouse is not so cunning anymore with his tactical moves, or perhaps he's lost the playing group. Or perhaps he doesn't understand the playing group. He was 47 when he started at Collingwood and grew with the club and the players. But starting off at Carlton at the age of 60 – it's like entering a new job in the workforce at that age. It's going to take a lot longer to get used to your new environment, work out who you need to pander to politically within the club, who you can make waves with. Mick is now 62 – there might be generational issues. Reminds me of when Footscray sacked Alan Joyce in 1996 – a good coach, but he'd lost his way, and the players. I saw footage from the Year of the Dogs, of Joyce in the rooms addressing the Footscray team. The players were disinterested, message wasn't sinking in, Joyce just seemed like an old guy (he was only 54 at that stage) ranting. Must be a bit like that in the Carlton change rooms. It's interesting to note that Carlton has gone downhill very quickly since Malthouse started in 2013 – Ratten had done a reasonable job in the three preceding seasons before he was sacked. A few more performances like the one on Friday night, and Malthouse will be gone sooner than we think.

Actually check out that screen shot! http://www.sportsfan.com.au/aggressive-hawks-made-a-statement-kennelly/tabid/91/newsid/160933/default.aspx?cid=SF_LOWDOWN_AFL_article_aggressivehawksmadeastatementkennelly_040515

Two weeks is a bit of a joke. Should have been 3, almost broke the blokes nose. Guess what saved him was that the ball was somewhat near and that he hit him with the 'soft' part of his arm, rather than his fist or his elbow (Luke Hodge thats you)