No, of course Carlton shouldn’t tank the 2016 AFL season. Tanking is bad. But what exactly should they do?
Just play football, and everything else will take care of itself. If you know what I mean.
Before we get stuck in, a programming note.
Today, we launched The Roar AFL podcast, which, as the name implies, is a podcast, hosted on The Roar, that talks about the AFL.
The pilot episode can be found on iTunes, SoundCloud or on this page, and sees myself and fellow Roar expert Jay Croucher discuss three things we’re looking forward to in the coming AFL season.
If we get an excellent, Roar-cus response, we’ll look to do something more regular and with a rotating cast of hosts and guests from The Roar‘s AFL stables. At the very least, we’ll be jumping on the mic to complete a full, team-by-team preview of the 2016 AFL season.
That’s a subtle request to please listen, like, share, comment and subscribe. There are lots of footy podcasts out there, but we believe what we can bring is an unflinchingly clear view on what’s happening on the field in the AFL, free of buzzwords, hot takes and Supercoach tips.
As far as we can tell, ours will be the only podcast that does not include at least one of these things.
(Just, please, ignore my Richmond faux pas.)
Right, so Carlton.
The Navy Blues had a dire 2015, with four victories, a mid-season coaching change, board upheaval, and a dramatic, if not productive, turnover of players. This culminated in a stellar $2.8 million loss in the football year, which is positively Brisbane-esque.
Their trade period was remarkable, in so far as they retained all of their older players, traded out a number of good younger ones, all for two additional high draft picks (costing them a 2016 first rounder) and a pupu platter of discarded talent.
I wrote about it, remember? That was a fun day, sports fans.
My prescription was a more thorough, wholesale rebuild to commence immediately in 2015, rather than the slow, tentative build that it appears the higher ups have decided to pursue. Why use an axe when it’s clear a chainsaw is required?
The triangle of Bryce Gibbs, Marc Murphy and Dale Thomas (although his value is probably depressed at the moment given his recent injury history) will ply their trade for one more year, adding more kilometres to their odometers, while reducing their potential trade value. Whether any of them will be around, or in Carlton’s best 22 at least, by the time their team are contending for finals and a flag is debatable.
All of that activity in October has left Carlton as clogged as it was to start the 2015 season: their list ranks seventh on the age curve, which at 24 years (according to DraftGuru) is almost precisely where they sat this time last year (24.1). Carlton are older than Adelaide, Richmond, Sydney (yes, the Swans!), Port Adelaide and the Western Bulldogs, which is insane.
Sitting at the top of the list on the age curve are Kade Simpson, Andrew Walker, Michael Jamison, Dennis Armfield, Cameron Wood, and Dale Thomas, who are all 29 or older in this football year. The prime age list – players aged between 24 and 29 – is for the most part made up of depth players, plus the three best assets in Murphy, Gibbs and Matthew Kreuzer. The list aged 23 or younger contains Patrick Cripps, and, well, the new crop of draftees and discarded Giants.
The Blues have lost experience, though, which happens when a 250-game player like Chris Judd comes off the books. Carlton are ranked 16th for average games played, which is down from ninth in 2015.
They enter 2016 as the team with the largest gap between age and experience in the league. It’s still, as I say, a clogged list, and one that is another spring clean or two away from even bottoming out.
In a crowded competition, where finals spots look to be at an all-time premium in not just this year, but for the two or three after that, what do the 2016 Carlton Blues do?
They shouldn’t tank, because tanking is bad, and AFL teams don’t tank anyway, do they?
The remarkable thing is, it almost doesn’t matter what Carlton do. We’re ten weeks away from the start of the season, and Carlton clearly have the worst list in the 2016 season – at least until we see what the Bombers’ next move is. Their fellow bottom-four finishers in Brisbane and Gold Coast have better playing stocks all throughout their lists, but particularly at the top end.
The Blues play the Bombers and Lions twice, in addition to double-ups against Collingwood, St Kilda and Sydney. Both a home and away victory against the Lions and Bombers look achievable, but otherwise the Blues will be hard pressed to do better than split the ledger in these ten games.
All Carlton have to do to get into a good starting position for the 2016 draft is play football, if you know what I mean. Despite all of the end of season strangeness, it’s something they showed us they’re capable of doing last season.
Their newly minted first-round picks – Jacob Weitering, Harry McKay, Charlie Curnow and David Cunningham – should all see some playing time, and perhaps early in the season. The club may even feel generous and lob a few games the way of their Greater Western Sydney discards, but I suspect those opportunities will be limited.
The Blues open their season in the traditional way against Richmond, before playing Sydney, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Fremantle, Essendon and Collingwood to round out the first third of the season. That’s seven teams with very different styles, who are at different stages of the list management cycle. They represent an excellent test of the new guys’ collective mettle.
There are going to be plenty of spots open in Carlton’s starting 22 as well, with high-use players like Tom Bell (22 games played), Andrew Carrazzo (16), Lachie Henderson (16), Chris Yarran (14) and Troy Menzel (14) no longer with the club.
All up, a combined 134 games for the Blues last year – which is 28 per cent of the total games available to be played in a 22-game season – are no longer around. The injured Thomas, Kreuzer and Gibbs will take up some of that slack, but others will be called upon to fill the void.
Meanwhile, the likes of Andrejs Everitt (22), Sam Rowe (20), Sam Docherty (19), Cameron Wood (18), Simon White (14), Andrew Walker (12) and Dennis Armfield (12) should see less playing time. These are not players who will be around in the next two or three years if the Blues are serious, and a portion of those minutes should instead be allocated to players who will be.
Pumping miles into the legs of their draftees – playing the kids if you will – must be objective number one for Carlton in 2016. But not too many, because Carlton’s new draftees could be good – in the way that, say, Cripps is good. After all, the Blues needs to play football this year, if you know what I mean.
Their second on-field priority – one which we’re told is being addressed – is a complete teardown and rebuild of their game style, not unlike the complete teardown and rebuild required of their playing list.
Under ex-coach Michael Malthouse, the Blues rolled out a tired, stodgy style of football. Carlton built around the maintenance of possession through slow play, holding onto the ball rather than sharing it, and playing the percentages. The only things it led to was a terrible percentage and Malthouse’s sacking.
There were some signs of renewal under interim coach John Barker, but with very little time to change course, and a raft of injuries and early surgeries, the Blues were still playing a dated brand for much of 2015. The Blues were ranked 17th in the competition for uncontested possessions and 16th for marks taken per game, while they ranked near the top of the table in uncontested possessions and marks conceded (fourth and second respectively).
To the Blues’ credit, they were good when the ball was in tight, with a clearance differential of +2.5 and a break-even result on contested possessions for the full season, suggesting a team that was strong in the clinches. That’s in no small measure due to the impact of Cripps, who ranked eighth in the competition for contested possessions won per game and 12th in clearances earned, as a 19-year-old.
But, in the end, Carlton’s dinosaur tactics were shown up as such by the free-flowing and fast stylings of the Western Bulldogs, West Coast Eagles and Greater Western Sydney Giants. In the 12 games where their opponents took 100 or more marks (the season average, plus 10 for good measure), Carlton conceded an average of 118.7 points, compared to 93 points in other games (a gap of 25.7 points). The only clubs with a larger gap were Essendon (+30.1 points conceded) and Brisbane (+28.9).
Forward of the ball, Carlton’s biggest issue has been personnel for a number of years now, and that looks set to be the case for 2016. From this way out, it’s hard to see how the Blues score anything more than they did last year – a pithy 69 points per game – with their projected forward line, which is almost exactly the same as they trotted out last season.
Dale Thomas could add something on the wing and at half forward, but the problem is once the ball moves inside the forward 50 stripe.
Their best bet is to begin to evolve into a side more in keeping with modern AFL tactics. At the most basic level, Carlton should, like the other teams that are now led by a recent ex-Hawthorn assistant coach, seek to play a much more open and free-flowing style of football. A tactical revolution takes time, which should suit the Blues nicely.
Which brings us full circle: Carlton don’t need to tank the 2016 season, and they shouldn’t. They just need to play football, and the rest should take care of itself. If you know what I mean.
Macca
Guest
NABChallenge Carlton v Sydney BEST Carlton: Kerridge, Cripps, Graham, Boekhorst, Curnow, Docherty, Weitering How many of those players are above 23? ;)
Ross
Guest
Ha ha that's a good one, to much truth and fact in my comment for journalism? I hope Carlton are closer than me it's been a pain 20 years! You can only change so much in one draft maybe the whole trade system is floored and we need to be more like the NFL mid year drafts etc.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Ross, judging from the post above you are about as far away from journalism as Carlton are from a flag. Hint: It's really, really, really, really long way.
Ross
Guest
Don't take it so personally, your saying my comments are a person attack? I am talking broadly about journalists who continually right teams and players off to only jump back on the band wagon when why improve, so I just saying your not accurate and maybe I should be paid to write articles on these matters, I'd say I am closer to being a journalists (as long as these spell check) than you have as being a list management adviser!!! Just saying ?
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Let's talk in four or five years when Carlton are still battling to make the eight, shall we? There's a reason you're commenting on articles and analysis, rather than writing them yourself. I'm still amazed by Carlton supporters - well, those that have resorted to personal attacks, glass-full assessments and nitpicking the minutae of average player ages - who can't see the wood for the trees.
Ross
Guest
Your opinion on Carltons list management and choices is as accurate as all the Journalists that said Manning and the Broncos were done and dusted all year, Manning should retire he's done etc, and here we are getting ready to watch them play Super Bowl, I am not saying the blues will make the GF or even the top eight, but I am glad there making the decisions and not you, because there's a reason you write about what Carlton do and not making the choices!
Macca
Guest
These are Champion Data figures; Average Age 1. Fremantle – 25 years and 157 days 2. North Melbourne – 25 years and 55 days 3. Hawthorn – 24 years and 307 days 4. Essendon – 24 years and 259 days* 5. Geelong – 24 years and 201 days 6. West Coast – 24 years and 175 days 7. Sydney Swans – 24 years and 124 days 8. Richmond – 24 years and 95 days 9. Port Adelaide – 24 years and 40 days =. Carlton – 24 years and 40 days 11. Adelaide – 24 years and 29 days 12. Collingwood – 23 years and 310 days 13. St Kilda – 23 years and 303 days 14. Western Bulldogs – 23 years and 270 days 15. Melbourne – 23 years and 241 days 16. Gold Coast – 23 years and 197 days 17. Greater Western Sydney – 23 years and 99 days 18. Brisbane Lions – 22 years and 343 days Average Games Played 1. North Melbourne – 93.9 2. Hawthorn – 86.6 3. Fremantle – 86.3 4. West Coast – 77.9 5. Geelong – 77.3 6. Essendon – 75.5* 7. Port Adelaide – 72.9 8. Richmond – 71 9. Collingwood – 69.5 10. Sydney Swans – 68.4 11. Adelaide – 62.5 12. Carlton – 60.4 13. St Kilda – 60.2 14. Gold Coast – 59.1 15. Western Bulldogs – 57.7 16. Melbourne – 57.5 17. Greater Western Sydney – 56.9 18. Brisbane Lions – 49 So we see of the 5 teams Ryan found it insane the blues were older than they are in fact only older than 2 of them Adelaide (by 11 days) and the Bulldogs
Macca
Guest
Aransan- Ryan has admitted to getting Docherty's age wrong and that the blues should be 7th on the age list not 6th, however the blues are actually 10th on the age list below the teams he thought it was insane they were above, a fact of which Ryan has been advised but he chooses to ignore. He also dismissed as a"generalisation" due to the need to be succinct his misrepresentation of the blues under 23 players when it is clear his intention was to make the blues list seem wors than it is, after all it doesn't take that many words to say "50% of the blues list is under 23 and that where the hope for blues supporters lies" On top of that there is no way Ryan's intimation that the blues list resembles a hawthorn or Freo rather than the more accurate correlation to a Melbourne or St Kilda could be deemed a stuff up as I provided him the stats. The only logical conclusion of Ryan's misrepresentations is that he has come to an opinion on what he thinks of the blues and manipulates the facts to justify it, to me that shows a bias
Aransan
Guest
Macca, a wise old head once told me that if you have to choose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, the stuff-up wins nearly every time. Ryan has admitted to some stuff-ups but you are still looking for the conspiracy. You are putting too much heat into this.
Macca
Guest
Really Aransan? You don't take exception to Ryan claiming the blues are older than Sydney, Richmond & Port when in fact they are younger than all 3? You don't take exception to him claiming it is insane the blues average age is above the 3 aforementioned teams but the. Later claiming the stat is meaningless because 15 of the team in he AFL have essentially the same average age? You don't take exception to Ryan claiming the blues under 23 contingent is comprised of Cripps, new draftees and GWS rejects when in fact almost 50% of the blues list falls into this age range? You don't take exception to Ryan intimating the blues list age profile mirrors the likes of Hawthorn and Freo when in fact it bears little resemblance to them and is much more aligned with fellow rebuilding clubs like St Kilda and ?Melbourne? You don't have an issue with Ryan claiming the blues at in the same place as last year when they turned over 1/3 of their list We obviously have different standards! I don't have an issue with someone stating he blues will adds the bottom of the ladder this year (and probably next) but I do have an issue with someone misrepresenting facts
Aransan
Guest
Macca, I think you owe Ryan an apology. I don't find anything exceptional in what he has written.
Aransan
Guest
No Macca, I am referring to Weitering. I remain unconvinced about the logic of taking McKay where he was in the draft. It seems as though Carlton were just determined to get him whereas the correct logic would have been to rank where he should be in the draft and if another club takes him before that point well so be it.
Macca
Guest
PaulD - it isn't his opinion I have an issue with, it is the way he supported it. When you rely on a stat that is wrong and in your own words meaningless (the ranking of the blues average age) for one of the main points of your argument then completely misrepresent the fact almost 50% of the blues list is under 23 to try and incorrectly make out the shape of the blues list is similar to Hawthorn or Freo when it is much more like St Klda and Melbourne you can't hide behind the "difference of opinion" line - as the saying goes you ar entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
rasty
Guest
Most are just built the same as every other teams supporters...
Paul D
Roar Guru
Good lord Macca, give it a rest. He's clearly had enough of the argument. You have your view, he has his. Ultimately the words we write here have absolutely no bearing on how those 18 players of yours are going to go come round 1, so why don't you just chill out, take a deep breath, and step away from the keyboard.
Macca
Guest
One last thing Ryan - if you really wanted to write an intersti group article "Carlton won't go well in 2016" really is t it, everyone already knows it. Oh and if you were being honest with yourself about your bias you would ask yourself why did I belittle the quality and quality of the blues under 23 cohort? Was it to add depth and balance to the article or simply to help justify your argumnent? It would have made the article much more intersti get if you had have focused on the blues long term rather than just trot out the cheap lines. As for the blues trading to end up in the same position, I didn't realize they started with 4 first round draft picks and that Menzel and Bell are worth 5 players?
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Also, where did I say they failed in the draft? I didn't. I made no judgement on their merits, only to say that they should be given a go. I was savage of their trade period performance, because it has led to them being in precisely the same position that they would have been in otherwise. I understand that you may not see it that way and that's fine, but to accuse me of bias for forming a point of view that is simply different to the consensus is, as I have said, offensive to me and all that I stand for in this caper. This is it now Macca. No more comments back. We have a different point of view, and I respect you for yours. Please respect me for mine; its the least you can do.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
There it is again, missing the point and arguing the minutia! I didn't say they should tank. I never said they should tank. I said in a competition that runs 14 or 15 teams deep, it doesn't matter what they do because they will end up at or near the bottom of the table anyway, and so they should use this season to play their kids and revamp their game plan. There it is on a platter for you. So because I don't think the same as everyone else that makes me biased? Maybe you should do some self-reflection Macca.
Macca
Guest
Your bias is not justbecause you made errors, it is a pattern, all good footy journals siad the blues did well in the trade period, Ryan says it was a fail, all god journals said the blues nailed the draft, Ryan says it was a fail, now we have this article which is just a rehash of your previous ones misrepresenting the blues age profile and deliberately playing down the extent of their under 23 players. And it is more than just missing players off alist, it is misrepresenting things to better fit your argument. I look forward to all the other articles advising the expected bottom 6 teams to tank as well!
Ryan Buckland
Expert
I'm going to leave this here Macca with one final comment. I find accusations of bias incredibly offensive. I made two errors, which I have copped to here. Its funny, everyone has picked up on the most contentious few paragraphs, missed the point of the article completely, and been content to argue over the minutia. That's fine if that's what everyone wants to do, but I find debates to be much more interesting and insightful if we aren't playing "gotcha" on missing player X from a list of players. The 'Roos are next, and I'm probably going to make some stinging comments about where they are at too based on my research this week. I wonder what their fan base will think.