Collingwood Almanac 2014

[Knightmare]

The closer we get to the season the more nervous everyone gets.....we've lost talent and we've replaced it with youth but don't think for a minute that one can replace the other. The guys we've lost have been proven. There is more chance in AFL of a proven premium that has had a bad year returning to that level than for youth stepping up. We talk about it in SC a lot and whilst many will knock it is a fact.

I still stand by the fact that the next few years will be tough. Personally I'm not expecting to see finals next year but I still think we are moving in the right direction.

I'm in the same boat NT.

We can have a healthy list and it won't matter. When you lose games of experience, veteran leaders of the quality of Maxwell and Ball, then a star in Beams and a high level footballer in Lumumba. That hurts. It's a nuisance that quality continues to leave our list.

It's such a different list to what we had in 2010. No L.Davis, Maxwell, Lumumba, Shaw, Wellingham, Johnson, Didak, Ball, Beams, Dawes, Jolly, D.Thomas and L.Brown. And no Tarrant or Krakouer from our second attempt. That's lots of quality out the door.
Even in reserve that 2010 team had Medhurst, Jack Anthony, O'Bree, Lockyer, Fraser, Dick, Rusling and McCarthy.

You could probably just about make a better team out of the guys who have gone than you could the guys we still have based on who these guys were at the time.

No level of good recruiting can make up for that long list of lost players, and certainly not when talking immediate results. If kids can perform early on that's a bonus but the reality is they'll have their ups and downs early on and other than the few stars we have remaining our better players are those still developing players.

 

[shizzle]

You keep talking about Lumumba as a high quality footballer, I thought his last 2 years have been poor, he's one dimensional, easy to read and a bit of a liability.Not even including his personal issues.

No idea how he got top 5 in the B&F, I know his stats look ok, but I wouldn't have had him as a top 10 player, more like 13-15.

 

[soreplums]

Our squad is different to 2010, just like it was different to 1990 and just like it was different again from 1958. Players retire. Players get moved on. Others come in. The landscape changes. Yes we are younger and don't have the same experience, but this team will grow together and with bucks and will have sustained success. People need to stop comparing our team with 2010, because it will keep changing. Apart from Heater, how many players that have departed would be genuine best 22 in 2015?

 

[Laurie Holden]

You keep talking about Lumumba as a high quality footballer, I thought his last 2 years have been poor, he's one dimensional, easy to read and a bit of a liability.Not even including his personal issues.

No idea how he got top 5 in the B&F, I know his stats look ok, but I wouldn't have had him as a top 10 player, more like 13-15.

You don't get top 5 without being a good player or doing exactly what is asked of you by the coaches. There were certainly games this year where he went missing, but he was hugely important and will be a massive loss on the field in 2015.

 

[Laurie Holden]

Our squad is different to 2010, just like it was different to 1990 and just like it was different again from 1958. Players retire. Players get moved on. Others come in. The landscape changes. Yes we are younger and don't have the same experience, but this team will grow together and with bucks and will have sustained success. People need to stop comparing our team with 2010, because it will keep changing. Apart from Heater, how many players that have departed would be genuine best 22 in 2015?

Great point! Imagine the 2010 team competing in 2015? There have been casualties and its disappointing, but mostly the changes to the list had to happen and i truly believe we've done extremely well in managing this over the past few years.

 

[Knightmare]

You keep talking about Lumumba as a high quality footballer, I thought his last 2 years have been poor, he's one dimensional, easy to read and a bit of a liability.Not even including his personal issues.

No idea how he got top 5 in the B&F, I know his stats look ok, but I wouldn't have had him as a top 10 player, more like 13-15.

I didn't like Lumumba's play this past season despite the high B+F finish but his 2013 season for me was terrific and among our best. This year he just due to need, needed to play back, but if released onto a wing he is still a highly effective offensive runner and if say Shaw was still on that team last year he could have played that role and have been more effective.

I also value the leadership Lumumba offered. He's a hard trainer and one of our hardest trainers and while he has his sensitivities he is the type of person I'd want on my team.

Our squad is different to 2010, just like it was different to 1990 and just like it was different again from 1958. Players retire. Players get moved on. Others come in. The landscape changes. Yes we are younger and don't have the same experience, but this team will grow together and with bucks and will have sustained success. People need to stop comparing our team with 2010, because it will keep changing. Apart from Heater, how many players that have departed would be genuine best 22 in 2015?

It depends on your view of sustained success. I'd class sustained success as year after year of top 4 finishes and years where you're in contention. The team we've got, isn't having that kind of sustained success. It will more likely be a sustained period of middle of the table finishes and once these young guys develop sustained finishes in the bottom half of the 8 unless some gamechanging list additions happen - which with free agency can happen, but with the trend of players going out rather than coming in, it doesn't feel like that will happen in the immediate future.

 

[Bard]

It will more likely be a sustained period of middle of the table finishes and once these young guys develop sustained finishes in the bottom half of the 8 unless some gamechanging list additions happen.

Going to have to disagree with this. Not because I think we'll 100% have a sustained period of success with the ultimate reward, but that history has shown us again and again that you can't accurately identify the projection of a team early in its development cycle.

 

[soreplums]

I didn't like Lumumba's play this past season despite the high B+F finish but his 2013 season for me was terrific and among our best. This year he just due to need, needed to play back, but if released onto a wing he is still a highly effective offensive runner and if say Shaw was still on that team last year he could have played that role and have been more effective.

I also value the leadership Lumumba offered. He's a hard trainer and one of our hardest trainers and while he has his sensitivities he is the type of person I'd want on my team.

It depends on your view of sustained success. I'd class sustained success as year after year of top 4 finishes and years where you're in contention. The team we've got, isn't having that kind of sustained success. It will more likely be a sustained period of middle of the table finishes and once these young guys develop sustained finishes in the bottom half of the 8 unless some gamechanging list additions happen - which with free agency can happen, but with the trend of players going out rather than coming in, it doesn't feel like that will happen in the immediate future.

A Team needs to grow with their coach. The players we moved on would not have grown with Bucks. We could have kept shaw, Wellingham, Dawes, H, jolly and we would be worse off going into 2015 and would have been scrapping around the last couple years in the bottom 8 before falling away quickly and then starting a rebuild with a near retiring Cloke and one man midfield in Pendles and a retired Swan.
We've started the rebuild early, the cohesion early and the growth mindset early. Players who will play key roles for us in the future have played under the leadership of maxwell, ball and even H (on the track). We've added potential future leaders in shaz, Adams, Langford, Elliott, Grundy and Moore to develop under Pendles and co.
I expect us to play finals in 2015. Despite who we have lost for next season, I look at who we have gained (recruited and returning from injury) and the fact that they can have an impact from round one. Given that we are likely to be big players in the 2015 FA market, topped up with another first rounder, we are well on our way to challenge sooner rather than later.
Our future is bright and Bucks will leave a legacy at the club

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Going to have to disagree with this. Not because I think we'll 100% have a sustained period of success with the ultimate reward, but that history has shown us again and again that you can't accurately identify the projection of a team early in its development cycle.

Yep. I remember when St Kilda were almost universally accepted as having the most talented young list in the comp, followed by Geelong. Worked out well that one

 

[Bay Pie]

It depends on your view of sustained success. I'd class sustained success as year after year of top 4 finishes and years where you're in contention. The team we've got, isn't having that kind of sustained success. It will more likely be a sustained period of middle of the table finishes and once these young guys develop sustained finishes in the bottom half of the 8 unless some gamechanging list additions happen - which with free agency can happen, but with the trend of players going out rather than coming in, it doesn't feel like that will happen in the immediate future.

That did happen though.

4th 2007
6th 2008
4th 2009
1st 2010
2nd 2011
4th 2012

Important players got old and ended up retiring. Ball, Jolly, Didak and Maxwell. Then add Davis, Leigh Brown etc. We may have done a little better with Shaw, but Wellers, Daisy and Dawes have been rubbish for their new teams. We wouldn't have won a flag and would have now been in a far worse off position list wise. I honestly don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Trying to predict how good this new group of youngsters is, is just a crap shoot. We have quality talent, so we've given ourselves every chance.

Without game hanging list additions in Ball and Jolly, we don't win a flag. Perhaps your own statement sums up why we only got the one flag. We were good, just not as good as we all thought.

 

[jonbe54]

That did happen though.

4th 2007
6th 2008
4th 2009
1st 2010
2nd 2011
4th 2012

Important players got old and ended up retiring. Ball, Jolly, Didak and Maxwell. Then add Davis, Leigh Brown etc. We may have done a little better with Shaw, but Wellers, Daisy and Dawes have been rubbish for their new teams. We wouldn't have won a flag and would have now been in a far worse off position list wise. I honestly don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Trying to predict how good this new group of youngsters is, is just a crap shoot. We have quality talent, so we've given ourselves every chance.

Without game hanging list additions in Ball and Jolly, we don't win a flag. Perhaps your own statement sums up why we only got the one flag. We were good, just not as good as we all thought.

We were good but our game plan was limited because of the way our list had been built. Low skill game plan, low skill recruiting. Add to that the constant injury storms over the off seasons, retirements and defections and you are inescapeably left with the position we now find ourselves in.

Considering the circumstances we have done well to remain as competitive as we have. Things will turn around, the speed at which we improve our ladder position is determined by the speed of progress of our young and very talented list - and of course those @#$%$% injuries!!!!!

 

[Knightmare]

I tend to see the players we have had and lost in the light of, many of them should still be playing/should not have declined as quickly as has occurred. It's this single fact that makes me down on the clubs future. At Collingwood 30/31 is largely retirement age, at the better contending clubs that retirement age is more like 30-34. I don't see winning as plausible when veterans are declining as early as they are on our list, no level of young player develop and junior talent identification can make up for that. It's just that simple.
Until that changes top 4 isn't happening and we'll get evidence of that when Pendlebury and Cloke hit 30. And even with Cloke we're already seeing signs of immobility that weren't as apparent early career.

 

[soreplums]

I tend to see the players we have had and lost in the light of, many of them should still be playing/should not have declined as quickly as has occurred. It's this single fact that makes me down on the clubs future. At Collingwood 30/31 is largely retirement age, at the better contending clubs that retirement age is more like 30-34. I don't see winning as plausible when veterans are declining as early as they are on our list, no level of young player develop and junior talent identification can make up for that. It's just that simple.
Until that changes top 4 isn't happening and we'll get evidence of that when Pendlebury and Cloke hit 30. And even with Cloke we're already seeing signs of immobility that weren't as apparent early career.

How old is Swanny? Maxy and ball had body issues. Jolly would have only played half a dozen games before retiring/ axing, as much as I loved didak, I'd rather see brooms running around. Cloke's immobility was due to being hampered with injury.

 

[jonbe54]

How old is Swanny? Maxy and ball had body issues. Jolly would have only played half a dozen games before retiring/ axing, as much as I loved didak, I'd rather see brooms running around. Cloke's immobility was due to being hampered with injury.

Swanny's big problem was a bad disc in his back, it's a bad sign plumbs - bad backs like that can be improved slightly and managed for optimal health but it's a downward track. Sore backs get better but backs with structural problems always disimprove.

 

[soreplums]

Swanny's big problem was a bad disc in his back, it's a bad sign plumbs - bad backs like that can be improved slightly and managed for optimal health but it's a downward track. Sore backs get better but backs with structural problems always disimprove.

I'm looking forward to see what the infield outcome will be. But what I can gather is that KM is saying that we push players out at the 30 year old mark when we should hold onto them. My view is that you need to weigh up the positives with the opportunities. We had witts and Grundy coming through, saving 300-400k by not re-signing jolly - player whose injuries inhibitted his consistency was a good decision. If players over 30 are still good enough to perform their role consistently on field, then hold onto them. But if there consistency to contribute is compromised then we need to look at alternatives. Top like players don't stick around just to be depth in a 'break glass in emergency' rôle

 

[Knightmare]

It's not even just pushing guys out, it's players declining prematurely at Collingwood. The mix of both, and not having those productive veterans who can continue to produce and remain into their 30s at the club to help the development of the youth, that hurts winning.

Look at the veterans Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda and Fremantle have. These guys just keep on, keeping on. And that decline happens later. To be a winning team you really need that is my argument. Without it, it hurts immediate results but then also the development of the youth because these veterans are essential in the learning process for the young players at clubs.

We've seen it at Melbourne, Carlton, GWS and Gold Coast. These clubs have struggled to develop talent not because of poor coaching, but instead because they haven't had the veterans around the club to help the youth develop which is why you can go through past drafts and identify so many players picked early by each of these clubs that have not worked out. And you look at Collingwood today and the only real established leader right now is Pendlebury, which is greatly concerning.

That's more where I'm coming from.

Collingwood have done well to identify good young talent and we do a good job developing young talent. We just don't after around the age of 24 have the ability to develop talent or keep them going later into their careers and as a result Collingwood feels more like a development academy than a team designed to win games of football against the best teams.

And that's before taking into consideration our recent injury history with the theory typically being the healthiest of the best teams typically goes all the way with that health of the list a further essential ingredient to winning.

It's a harsh but necessary assessment for team-improvement if we are to again go back to being that powerhouse we were in 2010/2011. I certainly don't believe in settling for mediocrity anyway, as much as there will always be teams that are middle of the road.

 

[Laurie Holden]

I'm looking forward to see what the infield outcome will be. But what I can gather is that KM is saying that we push players out at the 30 year old mark when we should hold onto them. My view is that you need to weigh up the positives with the opportunities. We had witts and Grundy coming through, saving 300-400k by not re-signing jolly - player whose injuries inhibitted his consistency was a good decision. If players over 30 are still good enough to perform their role consistently on field, then hold onto them. But if there consistency to contribute is compromised then we need to look at alternatives. Top like players don't stick around just to be depth in a 'break glass in emergency' rôle

The main difference is that if we were contending for the next 3-4 years and we had the same core group at that age we would've stuck with most. We weren't going to contend so made space in the cap and on our list to bring in younger players.

 

[Bard]

It's not even just pushing guys out, it's players declining prematurely at Collingwood. The mix of both, and not having those productive veterans who can continue to produce and remain into their 30s at the club to help the development of the youth, that hurts winning.

This is something that also concerns me greatly. But as you say it's not so much players being pushed out, it's the decline of players' physically. Unfortunately we can't know how our current crop of 26 and under players will turn out, until they get there, as they'll have been under a vastly different training regime in their time. It's something that will definitely be fixed over the years, but it's not something we can accurately track until the fix has been made and we start seeing a bulk of our best players continue on into their mid 30s. I'd say it's a problem not worth worrying about (as a supporter) as there is no obvious solution and we won't get any evidence of change until years, possibly a decade, after it has happened.

 

[swoop42]

Things can change for the better very quickly just look at the Port Adelaide example.

It's not the young talent on our list that is the worry for me it's whether Buckley is the coach to get the best out of them going forward.

Love Bucks the man, the footballer but he needs to leave us without any doubt in 2015 that he's got what it takes to be an eventual premiership winning coach.

 

[jonbe54]

Things can change for the better very quickly just look at the Port Adelaide example.

It's not the young talent on our list that is the worry for me it's whether Buckley is the coach to get the best out of them going forward.

Love Bucks the man, the footballer but he needs to leave us without any doubt in 2015 that he's got what it takes to be an eventual premiership winning coach.

Couldn't tell if Jock could coach with the injury malestrom we have suffered over the last 3 years - that's not to say that Buck's defs can coach but it's impossible to gauge anyone's abilities - except in a sort of a negative way - during this period.

I am content with results so far - considering the circumstances - but look forward to a somewhat less than catastrophic injury toll to start the year so a proper judgement can be made.

 

[Bay Pie]

When we won it in 2010 we had these guys as leadership, even though they didn't all play.

Lockyer
Medhurst
O'Bree
Fraser
Maxwell

Irrespective of playing abilities they were all model citizens that youngsters like Pendles, Sidey etc could look up too about how to go about it things on and off the field.

Bucks had these guys:

Johnno
Didak
Swan
Jolly
Ball
Maxwell

3 of them were loveable rogues but not really the types of model citizens you see at the top notch clubs now. Experiences players but not leaders. One appears to have proven to be a cancer and 2 others' bodies gave in due to how they played the game. You could through in Heath Shaw too with the 1st 3.

How many of Hodge, Mitchell, Bartel, Pavlich, Sandilands, Mundy, McPharlin, Enright, Richards, Grundy, Goodes etc are not model citizens? If you don't look after your body on and off the field during your 20's, the 30's spell the end of you. The character differences are poles apart and the time to learn the correct way come under the regime prior to Bucks. That's where it was learnt.

The funniest thing of all, is people blaming Bucks for players leaving, yet on the flip side blame leading teams for any instability amongst the playing group. Leading Teams is player lead. I.E the players that left no longer fit in with the current list once the older players retired. I'd love to post some of the stuff I've heard about Beams, Shaw and Thomas and it's nothing to do with Bucks outside of him trying to be the mediator. You piss other players off, you won't stay. Buy in to the group or piss off and that is player lead, not Buckley.

 

[Bard]

How many of Hodge, Mitchell, Bartel, Pavlich, Sandilands, Mundy, McPharlin, Enright, Richards, Grundy, Goodes etc are not model citizens?

With all due respect, I don't think any of us can judge which of those are or aren't model citizens. I realise your question is rhetorical but just because someone may or may not be well-spoken in the media has very little to do with how they carry themselves off-field in their private lives.

 

[Knightmare]

When we won it in 2010 we had these guys as leadership, even though they didn't all play.

Lockyer
Medhurst
O'Bree
Fraser
Maxwell

Irrespective of playing abilities they were all model citizens that youngsters like Pendles, Sidey etc could look up too about how to go about it things on and off the field.

Bucks had these guys:

Johnno
Didak
Swan
Jolly
Ball
Maxwell

I'd be inclined to say our recent generation of veterans are excellent and unappreciated leaders.

Swan is one of the hardest trainers at the club. He sets a terrific example. Same with Lumumba when he was at the club. They were both top 5 trainers at the club from all reports.

Ball and Maxwell for leadership were on another level and other than Pendlebury the two best of our other leaders we've had post Buckley/Clement/Burns.

Johnson was from all reports at the club a glue guy and someone who brought guys within the group together.

Jolly also was a terrific leader and was terrific for the development of Grundy and Witts, with Grundy particularly developing extremely quickly in 2013 under Jolly's direction.

Didak late career wasn't a problem guy either and just couldn't get his body right.

Then we had Tarrant who when he returned to the club was much more mature.

Krakouer who was a changed man.

I wouldn't identify any of the older players we've had as problem guys and from a leadership and player development standpoint I'd regard them even more highly than the 2010 supporting cast if you want to call them that, those aging depth guys.

--
I agree with your point that it is valuable to have veteran leadership in your depth stocks, and we saw the benefit of that in 2010 with the group really breaking out and the same story in 2007 back when we still had Buckley/Clement/Rocca/Burns with that young group having a similar breakout season that year.

--
As for is it Nathan or is it leading teams? I'd be inclined to say both have played a part in who we have become.

Leading teams has unsettled a number of players. And similarly giving Nathan the coaching in 2011 was unquestionably a mistake given the dynamics of the group we had at the time and we have seen that with the mass departures of the veterans and the results that have followed. But now Nathan has his new group of his men now it will be interesting viewing to see whether he can turn things around. He consistently says the right things but now it's a case of putting those right things to action and doing it to a standard exceeding all other clubs and it is achieving that, that is the challenge and what as head coach you get measured against.

 

[Robroy22]

One thing that never gets brought up about the fact that we've cleared or moved players on ( after all the "their bodies were shot", or they "weren't model citizens" stuff) is that the 2010 team was built by a master tactician to play a certain way, they were trained a certain way and could beat just about any other side if allowed to play that way.
BUT....
Following a brief period where our little club (yeah for once it was us!!) held a certain amount of dominance of the league...KB, Adrian Anderson, Andrew and the rest of the AFL nuffnuffs in suits decided that the 4man interchange made us just too quick and suited our midfield depth to a tee. So....they made up the guff about it leading to too many collision injuries, got a few more "experts" on board and CHANGED THE RULES.
Swanny said straight away that it would downplay his role by 10-15% a game but to a club so finely attuned to the 4 man interchange and a total team approach to tackling and pressure, it was "London to a brick" that we would suffer the most from the rule changes. ( Why didn't they do it when the Swans were flooding or North were playing the paddock?)
Faced with new interchange rules many of our players (senior players in the main part) had to be trained differently. Aerobic conditioning became more important than winning contested ball and teams like ours that were predominantly contested ball sides had to suffer.
So why do we really question that we'd need to change our list so drastically. Yes Port charged up the ladder in one year (based on a fabulous pre season going into a group of young adaptable top draft picks).....we on the other hand had a list of older and ageing premiership heroes.....YOU CAN'T FLOG A DEAD HORSE.
So now we have a young list again, its adaptable and it will be fit. My guess is the AFL will see us coming and will change the rules again introducing a rule that only players over the age of 26 are allowed to kick goals....

 

[loki04]

Yep. I remember when St Kilda were almost universally accepted as having the most talented young list in the comp, followed by Geelong. Worked out well that one

The one area it lacked was in defence and a quality 2nd KPF.