Lystics List Analysis – Carlton

Written by Motts on June 29 2018

We’ve got something a bit new for you this week, team. I met a guy the other day, John van Noorden, who started his own list analysis company, Lystics, a couple of years ago. Turns out he’s been a follower of SCT for years – anyone remember Jurn Stern? John’s now working his way through the clubs in a fascinating podcast series. Who should they cut, who should they keep, who should they get. First cab off the rank is Caaaaarlton. Enjoy.

Too Many Blues

Poor Motts. Carlton have been cellar dwellers for the past few years, and have made some trade and drafting moves that have left us questioning their direction.

In this new podcast, we pull apart the playing lists of AFL clubs like Carlton, analyse the key indicators, and determine who they should resign, delist, make a play for in trade/free agency, draft, and what moves they should make in the offseason.

With comments like “Just because your last name is Silvagni, doesn’t mean you should be getting a game for Carlton”, you can be sure that no punches have been pulled.

You can find the podcast via the links below, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, please subscribe and you’ll get more of it weekly. Thanks!

http://www.lystics.com/podcast

https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/lystics-afl-podcast/id1399593043?mt=2&uo=4

7
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

11 thoughts on “Lystics List Analysis – Carlton”

  1. Sounds interesting; I will definitely give it a listen later on.

    But I have to say from the outset that, assuming they are talking about Jack and not Alex, I disagree with the “Just because your last name is Silvagni, doesn’t mean you should be getting a game for Carlton” line. Notwithstanding the fact that I think he will eventually be a good player, even if he doesn’t, it’s still worth getting games into him. Why? Because when a player’s genes are that good, I believe it is worth keeping them on the list long enough to get 100 games into them so that you have access to their offspring under the father-son rule.

    This may not be the spirit of the rule, but hey, we’re Carlton – that’s never stopped us before!

    1

    0
    1. I don’t know if you can assume “his genes are that good”, a players genes are highlighted by his athleticism and skill, not by his lineage. Yes athletic parents tend to have athletic children and very athletic parents will often have very athletic children but the talent has to be on show, it’s not magically just going to pop out. Also playing kids for the sake of playing kids isn’t good unless they’re tearing it up in the VFL because you are essentially rewarding mediocrity. I also don’t know if attempting to play as many young kids as Carlton will work as I recall it only working at GWS where they had a ridiculous amount of first round talent.

      0

      1
      1. By the last part I mean I wonder if the amount of senior players you’ve let go in the past few years will affect players development through a lack of on field leadership.

        0

        0
      2. Sometimes brilliance skips a generation. It’s all about thinking very long-term. Gifting someone 100 games over 5 to 10 years on minimal salary isn’t that hard. It’s even easier when we’re in the middle of a rebuild, and are therefore going to be rubbish anyway, so one more sub-AFL-standard player out on the ground won’t make much difference. Sure, that takes away a spot from someone else into whom we could be getting games. But so does playing Dale Thomas. Long term, we gain far more from the former than the latter: continued access to a proven genetic lineage, plus getting games and experience into a young player who may yet turn out to be okay.

        I’m also a fan of retaining a pool of expendable players on the list to get around the AFL’s requirement of three mandatory list changes at the end of each year. If you have a young, talent-filled list, there may come a point when there is nobody ready to retire. This means you have to trade or delist at least three players just to make the AFL happy. If every single player on your list is good, you may not want to do that. Hence the idea of keeping around an expendable pool of what I call ‘delisting fodder’.

        0

        0
        1. I see no problem with that but what I was trying to say is I think you’d benefit from having a couple out of Garlett, Betts, Tuohy or Gibbs still on your list because they younger kids will benefit from being shown how to perform by the older guys on the field. That will in my opinion help their development.
          I just worry about a very heavy rebuild with very little senior players to carry and guide the team. Murphy, Ed Curnow, Simmo, Kreuzer and Doch carry the load as older players, and with Kreuzer’s injuries, Simmo’s age and Murphy’s possible departure you wonder how much older guidance they have going forward. No doubt Cripps is an amazing leader and a warrior and someone set to win AFLPA awards as captain of the year but I still think senior leadership would help you out. I definitely think Carlton will improve but following the GWS model of playing the kids and hoping they will learn is a bit tougher when you’re not given the amount of draft picks that they were. SPS, Dow, Plowman, Marchbank, Fisher, Weitering and O’Brien should all develop into quality players and you guys will certainly improve but I wonder if there’s enough talent on your list (and whether you will get enough talent) to be a contender. Cripps is already one of the leagues best and Curnow looks set to follow. I could be wrong, I think you will certainly improve and contend for top 8 with that list, but just my two cents.

          0

          0
          1. For the record, Docherty is only 24, and I’m not convinced Kade Simpson will ever retire, but you’re certainly right that we need senior players around the youngsters. That’s the main reason we’re so keen for Murphy to stay, even though we could milk the situation the way Melbourne did with Frawley and get ourselves a backdoor priority pick.

            The decisions to let Betts and Garlett go were clearly mistakes, but they were made under a previous administration. Gibbs and Tuohy were losses, but we were rewarded handsomely for them: we got two first round picks for Gibbs, who turns 30 this year, and Tuohy effectively netted us Marchbank + Pickett.

            With that said, we do need some mature players, which is why we are likely to target players in the 23-26 age bracket during the trade period, as well as drafting more young talent.

            0

            0
  2. I’m still so pi55ed that blues won their only game against my bombers. However, that may well be a defining moment..won 4 of last 5, three interstate, and the loss was to tigers. I want blues to rebuild…the old good for the game thing. I just want to play them in a granny and come from ten goals down and win by a point…..1999 will be put to rest only then !!

    2

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *