Carroll Suspension

[Gouga 508]

I agree with Dappa and have said it on another post. Carroll is still our most viable option at full-back for 2008. Simple as that. He is a solid contributor and can get the job done with a bit of support (of which he recieved none in 2007).

Frawley and Garland are BP/HBF options this year. That is all. Anybody who thinks either will hold done a KPP are kidding themselves. Blokes don't develop when thrown to the lions. Just ask Zac Dawson.

DB claims he is a teaching coach, well Carroll needs some teaching. Life lessons that is. Carroll needs to realise he is not as special as he thinks he is. He has a limited time in football and needs to make the most of it and most importantly he needs to realise his importance to the team.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Throwing the kids down back could work. It depends on the supply through the midfield. If our midfield plays like 2007 the kids will be smashed. I would suggest anybody mentioning Garland are living a fantasy. Rivers in 2003 and Frawley in 2007 showed more in their brief forays into the AFL and VFL than he did. He needs to learn how to play, his footy background is pretty limited and it shows at times. Play some senior footy in 08 and build for 09.

Frawley isnt even a good ordinary player at present. He is very average, but he is extremely quick, has a body that has more development left in it, great hands in close and loves to take on his man and use his pace going forward. His only weakness is his awful kicking technique, otherwise all the tools are there for something pretty good. Its up to him and the coach to make it happen. My hope is for a Darren Glass type full back but with more running.

Carroll needs to leave. He is a flawed fullback. He has no touch with his foot skills, makes terrible decisions, gets turned inside out with ease and generally makes plenty of errors. Add to that his off field issues and we have a player who should be playing either state league or suburban footy.

I think you are just about right Tigger. However, regardless of his technique, Frawley is still a capable kick. Dont let the action blur the outcome.

[Dee Dee 1,046]

timD i think i agree with dappa dan somewhat in that from watching frawley, it looks to me like he make make a good solid full back, but not be a matthew scarlett or SOS style world beater. i could very well be wrong, but what ive noticed with frawley, is that while he doesnt do a whole heap wrong, he doesnt seem to do anything extra special. he gets his job done quietly, nothing more. maybe he will develop something special. i think he was a great pick because i believe that he will play lots of games for the club as a successful KP defender, but i just don't see him being something out of the box.

Frawley has played just 9 games for the MFC as an 18 year old (he turned 19 in September). Watching him last season I was delighted by his general agility and attack on the ball. And most of all his general enthusiasm. Frawley has the height, 193 cm, for the job but at last seasons end weighed well under 90 kg. so weight was a problem.

Now, after 9 games I'm not expert enough to say he'll be a top class FB or just an average one. But if in a few years time he is anywhere near as good as his uncle was - that'll be good enough for me.

I remember hearing SOS say that in his opinion a full back took years to develop, maybe 60 games or more, so the kid shouldn't be judged just yet. The same goes for Garland. However I've seen little of him so I cannot comment further. And didn't we recruit Stefan Martin as a potential KP backline player? So for the future we seem to have a few options.

As for Nathan C., he's a journeyman filling a hole. Fun to watch, a bit of a character and someone who when on song holds down the FB position quite well. But he's very inconsistent and too often looks lost when the going is tough.

We can do better IMHO.

[The Emblem 1]

Frawley has played just 9 games for the MFC as an 18 year old (he turned 19 in September). Watching him last season I was delighted by his general agility and attack on the ball. And most of all his general enthusiasm. Frawley has the height, 193 cm, for the job but at last seasons end weighed well under 90 kg. so weight was a problem.

Now, after 9 games I'm not expert enough to say he'll be a top class FB or just an average one. But if in a few years time he is anywhere near as good as his uncle was - that'll be good enough for me.

I remember hearing SOS say that in his opinion a full back took years to develop, maybe 60 games or more, so the kid shouldn't be judged just yet. The same goes for Garland. However I've seen little of him so I cannot comment further. And didn't we recruit Stefan Martin as a potential KP backline player? So for the future we seem to have a few options.

As for Nathan C., he's a journeyman filling a hole. Fun to watch, a bit of a character and someone who when on song holds down the FB position quite well. But he's very inconsistent and too often looks lost when the going is tough.

We can do better IMHO.

If SOS says 60+ games than I reckon he would know. One of the good things about Chip was that even when he got some bags kicked on him last year he was right on his opponents hammer...so he's quick and he showed good anticipation. These however are not enough if insufficent midfield pressure means the opposition forwards are being delivered the ball lace up. So a bit more pressure this year and I think we will be able to see Chip able to spoil and use his pace to rebound.

As for Disco, very disappointed to hear this news, for MFC and for his own sake.

[Choko 493]

I am a naturally optimistic supporter, and when I saw that Carroll had been suspended for disciplinary reasons, my instinct was "good, a bit of discipline, line in the sand, etc..."

But I was astonished to learn that it was a retrospective punishment for nothing specific. That really does smack of tokenism and in my opinion shows the inappropriateness and juvenile nature of our leadership group. And then it's 2 pre-season games! JOKE. This isn't going to improve the culture, it's a token and rubbish punishment not linked to the crime (and no-one even knows what the crime is except some incidents that McLean was also involved in). It served only to impact on Carroll's physical preparation, and is not a lesson to others. It's a signal that we are trying (badly) to copy the Cats.

How would you like Yze, the laziest (talented, yes, servant of the club, yes, but honestly lazy) player serving a suspension on you when you have been training the house down and you exceeded curfew in the off-season. For crying out loud. And Neitz - great leader, but in all his years of being captain, all of a sudden he is imposing this? Yeh right.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But I was astonished to learn that it was a retrospective punishment for nothing specific.

How do you know that?

The newly formed Leadership Group - consisting of David Neitz, Adem Yze, Russell Robertson, James McDonald, Cameron Bruce, Brad Miller and Brock McLean - came to the decision to suspend Nathan after he showed a lack of professionalism in preparation for the 2008 season.

Do you know what the terms of the lack of professionalism in the preparation were?

[Choko 493]

How do you know that?

The newly formed Leadership Group - consisting of David Neitz, Adem Yze, Russell Robertson, James McDonald, Cameron Bruce, Brad Miller and Brock McLean - came to the decision to suspend Nathan after he showed a lack of professionalism in preparation for the 2008 season.

Do you know what the terms of the lack of professionalism in the preparation were?

"Carroll, 27, was not suspended for a specific incident, but the new-look leadership panel felt he was not showing the right level of professionalism."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

[mo64 5,209]

Carroll needs to leave. He is a flawed fullback. He has no touch with his foot skills, makes terrible decisions, gets turned inside out with ease and generally makes plenty of errors. Add to that his off field issues and we have a player who should be playing either state league or suburban footy.

Spot on Tigger. Those were my sentiments prior to his latest indiscretion.

And Dapper, maybe your assessment of Carroll's ability is seen through rose coloured glasses. It's been reported that he was put up for trade last year, so your opinions of him being in the prime of his career, aren't shared by the coaching panel.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

"Carroll, 27, was not suspended for a specific incident, but the new-look leadership panel felt he was not showing the right level of professionalism."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

Could it have been for more than one incident??

Do you actually know what he has done?? It would seem to me that such a penalty would not have been levied had not Carroll already breached a number of conditions.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's been reported that he was put up for trade last year, so your opinions of him being in the prime of his career, aren't shared by the coaching panel.

Nor other Clubs. I believe there were no takers.

[Yencks 8]

I disagree.

Someone like Carroll really needs the pre-season to prove himself again.

This way, he misses the first two matches in which Frawley and maybe even Garland take over his position. If they perform well, they're half way to taking his spot in Round 1.

He is far from safe in our backline, basically he is in our best 22 out of necessity moreso than ability. This combined with his off field behaviour means that Carroll has to really fight for his position in 2008. Missing the pre-season will seriously damage his standings going into the season.

Carolls 06 form is better than an inexperianced Frawley and Garland...I know we are about the future, but part of the reason Carroll was bad last year was because of the lack of pressure from the midfield allowing midfielders to run free and kick easily. also with such an open backline, last years full forwards had plenty of space to run into making it a walk in the park to beat carroll, or any defender at that...ala tom hawkins having to have two defenders on him...with a new coach supplying new spirit into a lackluster team, we could see huge improvements from carroll...however i do agree with you that it will be hard for him to get his position back after missing a couple of games

[Guest MFC4Life]

Frawley is a good solid ordinary footballer. I like watching him play, and think he'll carve out a nice career, but there'll be days when he cops it from supporters in the future. He's also one who is NOWHERE NEAR holding down FB full-time.

Totally agree DD. I'm staggered by the belief by some that Frawley should play Full-Back instead of Carroll. When was the last time a 19 year old successfully held down and performed well against opponents consistently. You give me examples and i'll shut-up!!!

[Dalrot 85]

I am a naturally optimistic supporter, and when I saw that Carroll had been suspended for disciplinary reasons, my instinct was "good, a bit of discipline, line in the sand, etc..."

But I was astonished to learn that it was a retrospective punishment for nothing specific.

Yet there is reports of Carrol acting like a [censored] outside some pub last weekend as well as the trouble in Europe...maybe these incidents are a regular occurrence and the club has had enough.

[Deeoldfart 7,758]

At the end of the '06 season many of the media 'experts' rated Carroll amongst the best few FBs in the competition. If he can recover that sort of attitude / form he would be an asset in '08, if not we shouldn't persevere.

Hopefully, the (small) sanction that has been imposed will be all that is needed to persuade him to knuckle down on and off the field. It was interesting to read Chris Connoly's comment in the Herald Sun that on the field Carroll was having his best ever pre season.

[mo64 5,209]

Totally agree DD. I'm staggered by the belief by some that Frawley should play Full-Back instead of Carroll. When was the last time a 19 year old successfully held down and performed well against opponents consistently. You give me examples and i'll shut-up!!!

Dustin Fletcher 1993. But the issue is that Carroll ISN'T successfully holding down fullback and performing well against opponents consistently. If he was, he wouldn't have been put up for trade.

[Harry Manback 2]

If SOS says 60+ games than I reckon he would know. One of the good things about Chip was that even when he got some bags kicked on him last year he was right on his opponents hammer...so he's quick and he showed good anticipation. These however are not enough if insufficent midfield pressure means the opposition forwards are being delivered the ball lace up. So a bit more pressure this year and I think we will be able to see Chip able to spoil and use his pace to rebound.

I remember watching Daniel Bell when he first came along thinking that if could improve his anticipation, he could become quite a handy defender. Had lightening closing speed to the point where he 'almost' managed to cause spoils where he was initially well out of position, but his lack of footy smarts cost him in the early stages of the contests. I doubt many would argue Bell hasn't improved significantly in this area (also, a lot less 'brain fades' when he has the pill these days), which all bodes well for a developing back with the attributes of Frawley, especially if he has already shown good anticipation as mentioned by DeeReaming. Give him another couple seasons and an extra 10-15kgs and I think we can have a very, very solid defensive player on our hands.

Also agree with Rhino- whilst not pretty- his kicking has so far appeared to be reasonably effective.

[e25 5]

Yet there is reports of Carrol acting like a [censored] outside some pub last weekend as well as the trouble in Europe...maybe these incidents are a regular occurrence and the club has had enough.

After having a chat with Beama and then bumping into Carrol in Munich just before the oktoberfest debacle, i think its less a specific incident and more a response to him putting himself in vulnerable situations far too often.

I was shocked at how nice and friendly he was towards me. Couldn't imagine him going around looking for trouble.

And at the time of these incidents remember that no punishments were handed down and i tend to think that's due to them not being directly involved.

I myself almost got locked up simply for being a big bloke and standing next to a guy who had a beer stein broken on his head in a completely unprovoked act.

It'll be good for him cos he'll wake up and stop opening himself to this sort of thing happening.

And hopefully it'll be a good example to the younger brigade.

[Rogue 585]

Dappa, I'm amused with the notion that Frawley is a good solid ordinary footballer. Please explain how you judge his current expereince, output and Potential. also reference his height, build and legspeed.

HE HAS PLAYED, WHAT, 8 GAMES?!?

If he is good, solid and ordinary now, he may be full back of the century by the age of 26.

Yeah, he might be full back of the century at 26.

How many years down the track is that?

While I won't try and talk on behalf of Dappa, the context was season 2007.

[Jaded No More 58,070]

"Carroll, 27, was not suspended for a specific incident, but the new-look leadership panel felt he was not showing the right level of professionalism."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

It's just a media cover-up.

He was suspended for a reason, and he's lucky the suspension is relatively mild.

Hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

If that's your line of thinking then what do you think of David Neitz?

I think comparing Neitz and McLean in regards to off-field incidents is a little unfair. Neita slipped up once, fronted up to that fact, learnt from it and moved on and has proven himself a great leader. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're referring to one incident in a long and decorated career. Brock has two big strikes against his name and in my opinion is yet to establish himself. I'm a massive fan of Brock McLean and think he should be our next captain but was bitterly disappointed with the crap that went on overseas. It's interesting that he's seen by many as being beyond reproach. He's got a big year ahead of him young Brock. Getting onto the park regularly, shaking off opposition attention and handling the responsibilities of leadership (off the field more than on) will be the criteria I judge him on.

[bjgc 0]

If Carroll has a year like he had last year he will have no chance of staying on the list, he will need to be producing his 06 form to have any chance. I think it will be a good chance for Warnock to have a crack at full back if he is not given a chance now he will never be given a chance. He is at the age now where he must do something or his AFL career will be over. He has the height and speed to take over full back so it's all up to him, I hope he does cause Carroll has had plenty of chances and stuffed them all up there will be a time when he makes 1 too many stuff ups and this could be the 1 and Carroll will only have himself to blame.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Still as an aside...can we take from this that the team in general isnt going to stand for stuffing around.. ?? maybe the club is maturing, taking ownership of its destiny. Im going to take this as a positive sign.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Dappa, I'm amused with the notion that Frawley is a good solid ordinary footballer. Please explain how you judge his current expereince, output and Potential. also reference his height, build and legspeed.

HE HAS PLAYED, WHAT, 8 GAMES?!?

If he is good, solid and ordinary now, he may be full back of the century by the age of 26.

Yeah. I probably should have been a bit more specific. From what I've seen of Frawley, he was played a bit last year because of two reasons. We were blooding youngsters in a season that was over by round 3, and we had no-one else. Not to say he didn't earn his spot compared to his competitors on the list or anything, but come on, he's only 18, and how often do you blood a youngster at FB at that age. Almost none of our other KP players were played within months of being recruited. The guy is going to be a career defender or wingman. And the footy he played was only exciting in patches. MOST of the time he got beaten in the body on body stuff... which is TOTALLY fair enough. I was thrilled to see him go in hard and not drop his head. I can't comment on CAC's decision to recruit him but maybe it's Frawley's work ethic off and on the ball that made him jump so high in the minds of recruiters late in the piece when he was recruited. I certainly didn't mean to slag him off. I happen to think 200 games as our full back is within his reach and talents. Maybe he could sneak an AA gurnsey one day given his size, pace and how hard he goes at it. I was, as Rogue says, only referring to him in terms of 2007. The "good ordinary" part was in reference to his skills. Rivers, for example, is NOT an ordinary footballer. I reckon the sky was always the limit with him. Frawley not so much. It's crystal-ball gazing, I know, but that's just my feeling.

And Dapper, maybe your assessment of Carroll's ability is seen through rose coloured glasses.

Why would I have rose coloured glasses with him? I know exactly what we have with him. I hated him right up to the end of 2005, even when he came in in those last few rounds and smashed a whole bunch of forwards. I am as grudgingly a supporter of his as anyone... We as fans carry on a lot about who we like and who we hate. Carroll, like I KEEP saying, is one of the only potential FBs in the side who has played at the highest level for an entire season. AND he's still within his footballing prime. Nothing rose coloured about that. Bad media or good, he's the only option out of these that's proven himself so far.

It's been reported that he was put up for trade last year, so your opinions of him being in the prime of his career, aren't shared by the coaching panel.

My opinion about him being in his prime are spot on. It's just his prime isn't all that impressive He's of a certain age and is no longer in development. But you make a good point. It depends on how you look at it. I reckon we would have loved to have traded Godfrey or Ward at the end of last season. We didn't trade them, and we most likely didn't even ask. Why? We would have been laughed at. Not so with Carroll. He has market value. Yes, you COULD be right. Perhaps his class as a footballer isn't seen as clearly as someone like Rivers, and this makes him expendable. Maybe it's as simple as the fact that they wanted to trade a mature, ready-made FB for a younger more promising one who could help us deep into the future, unlike Nathan can. Maybe the panel sees a surplus of future KP defenders on the list, and Carroll's age doesn't fit into our grand plan of basing our future around our 23-and-unders. If he was REALLY such a pain in the arse, and was REALLY that crap then this same panel would have let him go, right? But no. He's one of those rare things on the demons list. A player in the 25-30 age bracket. REASON suggests that they clinged onto him for the same reason I suggested above. Our starting backline would consist of only one mature proven player in Rivers (who is injury prone), an old warhorse in Holland who is a season by season prospect and not much better a player than Nathan, and then a couple of 19 year olds. We'd get smashed more readily than we would if we kept Carroll on.

For the record, I am actually in the same boat as all the nay-sayers. In a perfect world I'd have a 1st round pick in every position on the ground. Our defenders, particularly our KP defenders have been a weakness for a long time. We are in the process of fixing this, and what I'd like to see is about 5 players who COULD play in the 3 KP posts on the list before we let go guys like Carroll who will only ever be as good as he was in 2006.

A list must be made up of your good players, and a few that you would consider workhorses. Carroll's a workhorse in a weak list. Simple really.

Come the end of 2008, even if we make the finals, I think we'll see another clearing of dead wood like we did a few months ago. As many said, I reckon about 12 players had to go. Carroll could be part of phase two, but ONLY if the Frawleys, Rivers and Martins of this world show that they can cope with the big time for 22 rounds. If not, then we're going to be forced to stick with him.

One thing's for certain. His attitude will need to be on. If he gets cranky and his training suffers, he doesn't have the skill and nous to go finding the footy even when unfit. It makes me nervous on his behalf, and on the team's behalf.

[_becks_ 35]

Like someone else said this may not be an isolated incident. Perhaps he has committed some other indiscretions recently (as well as the OS stuff) and the leadership needed to act.

[Jarka 767]

I think comparing Neitz and McLean in regards to off-field incidents is a little unfair. Neita slipped up once, fronted up to that fact, learnt from it and moved on and has proven himself a great leader. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're referring to one incident in a long and decorated career. Brock has two big strikes against his name and in my opinion is yet to establish himself. I'm a massive fan of Brock McLean and think he should be our next captain but was bitterly disappointed with the crap that went on overseas. It's interesting that he's seen by many as being beyond reproach. He's got a big year ahead of him young Brock. Getting onto the park regularly, shaking off opposition attention and handling the responsibilities of leadership (off the field more than on) will be the criteria I judge him on.

I think you're guilty of having double standards. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the incidents that Brock was involved in was not instigated by the man himself, a couple of idiots picked a fight with him, how do you get a 'big strike out' of that?. Neitz on the other hand got blind drunk in a well known Melbourne nightspot, tried to get into a taxi and then proceeded to do something that called for several security guards to get involved. He then decided to fight his way out of the situation.

I'm amazed that you can so critical of McLean and at the same time completely dismiss Neitz' actions which I consider to be far worse.

Neitz 'fronted up to it' because it was in the papers before he had a chance to sober up, but there has been other 'incidents' that he's been involved in, one example had a semitic flavour to it.