Carlisle? What's his role now?

[Moods]

I read with interest various posters indicated that Jake hasn't been part of the team prior to tonight due to not conforming to 'structures' or having a questionable attitude.
I thought he had minimal impact tonight and looked slow lumbering around the ground. But I still say he's important to the way we structure up, ie having those 2 big backs is important against Port, Cats, WC, even tiges. If we play pies he will be important against either Miocheck or Cox or the Dogs against Bruce or Naughton. It appears to me that Ratts has been unhappy at Jake zoning off and going for his marks and wants him to play a more accountable style of game where he blankets his opposition player. It's not his go imo. He has a great pair of hands and we need that intercepting player. For mine we don't have it atm. Either Jake needs to develop an ability to blanket his opponent AND read the play like McGovern and Barrass or Wilkie is going to need to grow 3 inches this fortnight.

My own opinion was that Jake looked slow and barely touched the ball. His opponent Cameron is horribly out of form but I thought a more in form player could have really hurt us. How do we maximise Jake's ability to mark without compromising our structure and have an opposition key fwd get off the chain?? Quite the conundrum I reckon.

[avid]

We should play him only if there's a particular player we need him to cover.
We can put Battle on anyone else, and there are plenty of other players deserving a game more than Carlisle.

[CURLY]

If we play Collingwood Carlisle takes The Yank Howard V Miochek Wilkie v DeGoey.

[bangaulegend]

I read with interest various posters indicated that Jake hasn't been part of the team prior to tonight due to not conforming to 'structures' or having a questionable attitude.
I thought he had minimal impact tonight and looked slow lumbering around the ground. But I still say he's important to the way we structure up, ie having those 2 big backs is important against Port, Cats, WC, even tiges. If we play pies he will be important against either Miocheck or Cox or the Dogs against Bruce or Naughton. It appears to me that Ratts has been unhappy at Jake zoning off and going for his marks and wants him to play a more accountable style of game where he blankets his opposition player. It's not his go imo. He has a great pair of hands and we need that intercepting player. For mine we don't have it atm. Either Jake needs to develop an ability to blanket his opponent AND read the play like McGovern and Barrass or Wilkie is going to need to grow 3 inches this fortnight.

My own opinion was that Jake looked slow and barely touched the ball. His opponent Cameron is horribly out of form but I thought a more in form player could have really hurt us. How do we maximise Jake's ability to mark without compromising our structure and have an opposition key fwd get off the chain?? Quite the conundrum I reckon.

Didn't seem to be too motivated tonight but it's hard to tell with Jake he looks very laconic at times but maybe that's just how he is . His body language didn't look as though he was really giving it everything but we won & he played some part to that win. Bottom line is if he's not happy to be part of the journey he probably should go elsewhere next year but I MO he will stay

[Gershwin]

From Tom Browne:
"Jake Carlisle has a tough call. He really wants to play in a final. But going to the birth of his third child is also a non negotiable. Needs to decide on returning to NSW/Vic by the end of this month. Good to see him back in the side last night."

I think having at least 2 talls in the backline is essential and I don't think Wilkie or Battle can fill the 2nd tall role. If Carlisle can't play then bring in Logan Austin. He will know the structures, is fit and minimises the changes to the side.

[remboy]

I think he helps the structure of the side and frees up Wilkie and Coffield to be more attacking. He brings more to the side than just his own possessions and role.

[sks023]

I think he helps the structure of the side and frees up Wilkie and Coffield to be more attacking. He brings more to the side than just his own possessions and role.

100%

[Joffa Burns]

I think he helps the structure of the side and frees up Wilkie and Coffield to be more attacking. He brings more to the side than just his own possessions and role.

100%

Agreed, regardless of his output, we have been exposed for height and loose the rebound value of Wilkie & Coffield when Carslile does not play.

[Apples]

I think he helps the structure of the side and frees up Wilkie and Coffield to be more attacking. He brings more to the side than just his own possessions and role.

I also agree with this statement and other posters, we structure up much better when Carlisle is in the side. It's no co-incidence that our form has not been as good recently with Carlisle out of the side but last night we were better with Coffield and Clarke released.

It will be an interesting call next year if we go with him again.

[starsign]

bIt off topic but anyone notice melon head Toby Green strike Jake Behind play With 2.08 min left Q2 ?

[johnearljames]

To get traded. He gets torched by good key forwards.

[saynta]

bIt off topic but anyone notice melon head Toby Green strike Jake Behind play With 2.08 min left Q2 ?

The bad tempered prick was hitting players all night. Paton copped the brunt of it though.

[longtimesaint]

Paton addedGreene to his list of conquests this yesr

[longtimesaint]

Paton addedGreene to his list of conquests this yesr

[SaintPelican66]

We should play him only if there's a particular player we need him to cover.
We can put Battle on anyone else, and there are plenty of other players deserving a game more than Carlisle.

Battle should never again play in defense. He is much more valuable in attack.

[SaintPelican66]

We should play him only if there's a particular player we need him to cover.
We can put Battle on anyone else, and there are plenty of other players deserving a game more than Carlisle.

Battle should never again play in defense. He is much more valuable in attack.

[SaintPelican66]

We should play him only if there's a particular player we need him to cover.
We can put Battle on anyone else, and there are plenty of other players deserving a game more than Carlisle.

Battle should never again play in defense. He is much more valuable in attack.

[SaintPelican66]

We should play him only if there's a particular player we need him to cover.
We can put Battle on anyone else, and there are plenty of other players deserving a game more than Carlisle.

Battle should never again play in defense. He is much more valuable in attack.

[The Fireman]

Balance

[avid]

If we play Collingwood, we maybe need him to play on Cox.
If we play Bulldogs -- looks like Naughton's out. So no need for Carlisle. We'll want someone faster, and better.

[sunsaint]

having watched Carlisle the last few weeks
I reckon his fatherhood role is squarely on his mind lately