the midfield and our ruck stocks

[FIGJAM]

I doubt Hampson or Renouf were worth punting pick 10 on.

Hine said if Brown or Reid were gone, we'd have taken Hampson at 10. We didn't rate any other ruckman at the picks we had. Midfielders either.

Bryan will be adequate back up. From the pics I've seen of Travis, I reckon he's a touch taller and may be an adequate last resort.

 

[FIGJAM]

Not trolling, but I am flabbergasted that you guys didn't go for some top flight midfield talent. I mean, Dale Thomas is looking the goods but he's as much a flanker as any player i've ever seen. Reminds me of Cam Bruce a bit actually, just slightly smaller.

Dale Thomas is as committed at the contest as Brock McLean, make no mistake about that (oh wait, you already have!).

That he is versatile and doesn't have to be rushed into our starting four is irrelevant.

 

[rick James]

Dale Thomas is as committed at the contest as Brock McLean, make no mistake about that (oh wat, you already have!).

That he is versatile and doesn't have to be rushed into our starting four is irrelevant.

I never talked of his commitment, there was no mistake made. I agree he has a crack at the ball - are you saying Cameron Bruce doesn't?

I just see him as a winger/flanker more than a midfielder is all. The way he is so damaging when given some space or time is what I base my opinion on. I certainly didn't imply he wasn't hard at the footy, I think most players these days absolutely have to be to forge a career anyway.

His body will develop, he'll never be huge, but he could certainly bulk up to the extent of Cameron Bruce with time and effort. (seriously have a look at bruce's body circa 2000 it's almost identical to Dale Thomas)

Remember, Bruce can play midfield very well as well, it just took him a few years to get to that point, no reason Thomas can't I just don't see him doing it at this stage.

 

[MarkT]

Bryan hates pagan, and pagan hates bryan, this kid has wanted out of that club from almost day 1.. They just dont get along at all, and is the main factor in his limited game time. He would be a great pickup for us and can play forward.. pagan is a total fckbag when your on his bad side and only offered bryan a 12mnth deal. he wants 2 hence another chance at the big time, collingwood should seriously consider this kid, he would be a great asset for us.

Maybe you are right. If so how can he last until 10? Look Bryan might work. We have backed a longshot and we are ordinary punters with no bank.

 

[FIGJAM]

Cam is my premier mid in the fantasy draft game and I drafted Cross in to feed him the pill. He ain't a soft ********, but his preference is to be be outside packs.

Thomas' preference is to initiate body contact no matter the consequence.

 

[FIGJAM]

Maybe you are right. If so how can he last until 10? Look Bryan might work. We have backed a longshot and we are ordinary punters with no bank.

Fortunately actual clubs know more about what each other are doing than us mug punters do.

There's nothing stopping anyone from taking Bryan, but surely we'd have done the research to work out whether or not the Hawks or Aints are interested. Doubt anyone else would bother with him.

 

[ant22]

So was Mathew Lokan. They give one out every week.
Define very good football. Jason Cloke played very good football in 2002. Richards half season was nowhere near as good as Jason’s 2002.

The point is, to say he definitely has the talent is just a massively optomistic Collingwoodism. There are huge doubts about his ability and on top of that there are huge doubts about his ability to ever be sound enough play to his potential and then the heart concern you have can be considered.

I don’t have any problem with giving him 1 more year. What I have a big problem with is going into a year with Fraser as number 1 when he isn’t a very good tap ruckman and Richards as number 2 and at this point there is no number 3. So we may take a Carlton offcast in the PSD IF he is still there for our pick. Let’s just think about that. A bloke who can’t stay on Carlton’s list let alone play seniors and who is passed up by 9 clubs that did worse than us last year. The guy may make it yet but drafting and general list management is a numbers game. The odds are stacked against most drafted players making it. I think the average career is 3 and a bit years. History says that of the blokes we just drafted half will be average and delisted within 4 years. Put that into context with having Richards as our only backup to an average tap ruckman and a hope of a PSD selection being available that has more doubts hanging over him than Richards.

Now ask me why Collingwood don’t win premierships! No I never said that. My issue, as I have said repeatedly isn’t really about the 2007 draft. It is context of our whole list management. In relation to this draft the bigger issue is that given our assessment of the talent and the players we though appropriate to draft why didn’t we have the ruckman already on the list. I have asked the same question for the last 5 years.

On richards. We will have to agree to disagree. Cloke did play very good football in 2002 but as a loose man. I reckon Richards did enough in 2002 to suggest he was a very good tap ruckman. He played several good games leading up to his nomination and I don't think you can fluke that when playing ruck. As a loose defender and as a tagger(cloke and lokan) you can get under peoples gaurd and play with little or no attention. As a ruckman you do not have the luxury as you are constantly in one on one contests. I don't believe you can fluke the form he showed. As I have said I do have major question marks over his durability and his ticker(probably due to contact injuries) but all I am saying his he was worth keeping for atleast 1 more year.

would have been great to pick up a ruck but they have to be able to play and I don't think it is worth giving up 8 or 10 if they are not worth 8 or 10. It also seemed as though any other ruck they rated was gone by 28. sometimes the cards don't fall your way in a draft.

On the issue of drafting. I don't disagree that the drafting in the past has been dissapointing in past years. I have stated many times that our problem now is the time between 01/02/03 . The only players I can think of that are still at the club are Swan on shaw from those years. This is a massive void to fill.
you seem to think we have had the best picks of all the clubs in the last 5/6 years. I think you might find that the saints/Hawks/tigers at the very least have had better picks than we have. And While Eddie always says the best for collingwood the draft is a level playing field. We have just about the best of everything because we can afford it but it still does not help you get players.
I believe in the now and don't get caught up in the past. I think Hine has been very good to date and i have faith in his ability to recruit .

Obviously you think Malthouse should go and perhaps his time is nearing.

I too want to win flags but honestly can't see it happening in the next couple of years. I have excepted that the club(team) is in a bit of a re building phase and I am not going to let myself loose sleep over it. If I do then my wife would probably leave me.

 

[ant22]

I suppose all those suggesting we should have taken a ruck instead of the best available are in full support of the decision to take McKee and pick 7 instead of Pavlich at pick 4.

Similarly this crap about not drafting ruckmen. Since 1999 we have drafted Fraser, McKee, Richards, Fanning, C.Cloke and Hall. Now its true that most of these turned out crap but picking ruckmen is notoriously difficult. All the best ones seem to come late in the draft or as rookies (Cox) and they seem to be extremely fragile.

In fact, if you look at the last 5 or so drafts, no ruck seems to have come on (maybe Minson and doggie supportes thought he was a bad choice at the time). Essendon has delisted Cartledge, Carlton Bryan, Meesan (pick 7) has done nothing, Brisbane has so much confidence in Woods (pick 18) that despite also having Charman and McDonald and desperately needing midfielders they drafted Leunberger. StKilda's Brooks(high draft pick) hasn't come on. Essendon's Layckock (pick 9,10 or 11?) is much inferior to Richards.

Now we may need a ruck, but if a Goldstein, Tippet or Currie is no more likely to succeed than a Fanning, then why give up a draft pick at the national draft? I have no doubt that if available, we will pick up 1 or more in the PSD and rookie drafts.

Top post. If we remember back Richards and Hall were considered absolute bargains and if memory serves correct they were rated about the 2/3 best ruck prospects in their drafts. Rucks are extremely hard to predict and chances are you can rookie a young ruck(like cox) and they may turn out to be better than a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Maybe the club has there eye on a rookie

 

[rick James]

Using Cox as an example isn't a good idea, West Coast pretty much hid him from the rest of the competition. It wasn't like he suddenly came good, he was awesome from the start.

Simmonds and Jolly were both picked up as rookies by Melbourne though - they'd probably be top 10 ruckmen going around at the moment. I think Lade was also rookied.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fortunately actual clubs know more about what each other are doing than us mug punters do.

There's nothing stopping anyone from taking Bryan, but surely we'd have done the research to work out whether or not the Hawks or Aints are interested. Doubt anyone else would bother with him.

I'm sure we have a plan B if Bryan slips through.

In fact Bryan is Plan Q, so hopefully we have a Plan R!!!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Using Cox as an example isn't a good idea, West Coast pretty much hid him from the rest of the competition. It wasn't like he suddenly came good, he was awesome from the start..

Good point.

 

[ant22]

Using Cox as an example isn't a good idea, West Coast pretty much hid him from the rest of the competition. It wasn't like he suddenly came good, he was awesome from the start.

Simmonds and Jolly were both picked up as rookies by Melbourne though - they'd probably be top 10 ruckmen going around at the moment. I think Lade was also rookied.

was not aware of that but I think my point is still valid

thanks anyway

 

[rick James]

was not aware of that but I think my point is still valid

thanks anyway

It is definitely a valid point, I'm just being a pain in the arse.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'm just being a pain in the arse.

Good point.

 

[ant22]

It is definitely a valid point, I'm just being a pain in the arse.

Thats ok , being a pain in the arse is good fun!!

 

[Palmer Stoat]

My dad barracks for Collingwood, and I'm genuinely fearful of my safety at home this coming season.

Just from looking at your midfield, the best players looked old last year and the young blokes who are apparently going to fill the void, well, they don't look that good to be honest.

Not trolling, but I am flabbergasted that you guys didn't go for some top flight midfield talent. I mean, Dale Thomas is looking the goods but he's as much a flanker as any player i've ever seen. Reminds me of Cam Bruce a bit actually, just slightly smaller.

Are you guys worried about the midfield development? I spose, if you're going to be stacked in one type ofm player you'd prefer KPP over midfield, as midfielders can be developed quicker, but honestly I just really think your midfield is going to get carved this year.

This whole thing about Dale Thomas being a flanker gets repeated ad infinitum on BF. But what is it about him that makes him a flanker? He's smart, he puts his head over the ball, he tackles, he carries, and he's got great hands. The only thing that'll hold him back is that fact that he's still relatively light. But that's nothing that two or three preseasons won't fix. Thomas will be a mid.

As for our other mids, we've got Pendlebury too. I seem to be an army of one on this point, but Pendlebury is very good in close. He's not a battering-ram mid, but he's got great anticipation, super hands, and great evasion. He actually spent quite a bit of game time in the centre square in his first year. Wait till he does a full preseason. Again, for my money, another mid.

Then there's Heath Shaw. Pace, courage, good skills, and competitive overhead. He'll move into the midfield next year.

And there's Dane Swan. He's an interesting one. Not overly quick, but quick enough. Not particularly silky by foot, but he chooses the right options, so this doesn't get exposed. Natural goalkicker.

It's those four who are gonna form the nucleus of our midfield. They're all young, none have played 50 games. Yes, in the short term we're probably gonna suffer a fair bit of midfield pain. There'll be great gnashing of teeth and much wailing about how we should have drafted 33 midfielders in the last two drafts because that's the way the game is going.

In the meantime, we'll get game time into Shaw, Swan, Thomas, and Pendlebury. We'll rotate Didak and Egan between the wings and HF. We'll hope like hell that ******** and Goldsack come on. And in next year's draft we'll round out our current midfield with another couple of mids.

If we'd have six picks in the top 30 we could have drafted three KPs, two mids, and a ruck. Everyone would've been happy. (Except maybe MarkT -- but he's as morbid as an old Russian novelist.) But we didn't, so we had to make choices. In the end, it sounds like we just went best available. Amen to that, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Using Cox as an example isn't a good idea, West Coast pretty much hid him from the rest of the competition. It wasn't like he suddenly came good, he was awesome from the start.

Are you serious? They may well have hidden him; I don't know. But Dean Cox was NOT awesome from the start. He was cod ordinary in his early days.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This whole thing about Dale Thomas being a flanker gets repeated ad infinitum on BF. But what is it about him that makes him a flanker? He's smart, he puts his head over the ball, he tackles, he carries, and he's got great hands. The only thing that'll hold him back is that fact that he's still relatively light. But that's nothing that two or three preseasons won't fix. Thomas will be a mid..

Agree. He kicked a bag in the TAC Grand Final, and everybody's got him pigeon-holed as a forward pocket/flanker. Nobody considers the possibility that the reason he did so well in that game is simply because he's a gun.

He's definitely a midfielder. Better still, a goalkicking midfielder.

 

[rick James]

Yeah I agree that the four midfielders you mentioned are quite good, and should be for a long time.

I see Thomas as being more damaging as a flanker/winger is all, much like Bruce.

Sure he can play midfield, but he might be more dangerous on a flank, that was my point.

Swan, Pendlbury and Shaw are all good, but you need more than that. Midfields are getting longer, look at Melbournes:

Green
Bruce
Johnstone
McLean
Sylvia
Pickett
Jones
Bate
Bartram
McDonald

And there's more waiting to get a chance...

All the above get a game pretty much every week and all get time through the midfield. You need more rotations, and you need more depth to the midfield these days.

As I said, a midfield can be fixed on the fly, KPP's can't (Melbourne had to rebuild our midfield almost entirely over the space of two or three years, it worked) so I don't envisage you guys having a really bad time with the way you've drafted.

but I can picture a season similar to the one we had in 2003 coming up for you blokes.

 

[MarkT]

...but all I am saying his he was worth keeping for atleast 1 more year.

Keeping and relying on are worlds apart.

would have been great to pick up a ruck but they have to be able to play and I don't think it is worth giving up 8 or 10 if they are not worth 8 or 10.

I agree. That was never my point. My real issue is overall list management. No rucks at our picks would have been predictable further back than trade week. If not this year then at least a few of the last 15.

you seem to think we have had the best picks of all the clubs in the last 5/6 years. I think you might find that the saints/Hawks/tigers at the very least have had better picks than we have.

Debatable but if you are right where should that place us particularly give the top end on of the list in 1999. We had a crap side overall but there was some top end talent in there.

And While Eddie always says the best for collingwood the draft is a level playing field. We have just about the best of everything because we can afford it but it still does not help you get players.

The best people DOES help.

I too want to win flags but honestly can't see it happening in the next couple of years. I have excepted that the club(team) is in a bit of a re building phase and I am not going to let myself loose sleep over it. If I do then my wife would probably leave me.

Look we are clearly rebuilding. Like we have done before. That’s the point. When we had our shot we blew it. That rests at the incorrect assessments made by the coach ion a number of fonts - selection, tactics and trade targets in and out in the main. What’s done is done. What I am concerned about is the same people doing what’s been done to date.

You say MM’s time may have come. I say it is has well past. Can you tell me what you think he is good at?

 

[Lindy]

What we need is a crash and bash ruckman, someone is going to the get the ball going our way. Someone that is actually put some physical pressure on players and crash some bodies.

Some one like cain?

 

[ant22]

Keeping and relying on are worlds apart.I agree. That was never my point. My real issue is overall list management. No rucks at our picks would have been predictable further back than trade week. If not this year then at least a few of the last 15. Debatable but if you are right where should that place us particularly give the top end on of the list in 1999. We had a crap side overall but there was some top end talent in there. The best people DOES help.
Look we are clearly rebuilding. Like we have done before. That’s the point. When we had our shot we blew it. That rests at the incorrect assessments made by the coach ion a number of fonts - selection, tactics and trade targets in and out in the main. What’s done is done. What I am concerned about is the same people doing what’s been done to date.

You say MM’s time may have come. I say it is has well past. Can you tell me what you think he is good at?

I have never ever said richards is the answer. All I have said is he deserved another year. i said this because I do believe he has talent(does not matter if you disagree i think I have made a reasonable agrument on this)and several others thought he should be delisted which I do not agree with.

SO what we blew it in 02/03 . Its happened and I have moved on. I do not(and did not at the time) rate our lists in the top 2 in the comp in either of these years. Therefor I think Mick must be good at something as IMO he got the team to over acheive in those years. I think those years entitled him to a couple of years grace. but clearly you are alot less forgiving than I am. Having said all that i reckon he has a few weakness's that have appeared in the last couple of years , the main one for me being him favouring certain players and being to stabborn in pesisting with certain players. ie things walker can play and thinking j cloke was a forward. I am not in the inner sanctum so I am not really in a position to say what he is or isn't good at.

Agreed the best people does help but just because Eddie says "only the best for collingwood" does not mean we can always get the best. I will say it again , eddie is a politician and says things to make members happy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have never ever said richards is the answer.

He's definitely the answer, in my opinion.

What was the question again?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yeah I agree that the four midfielders you mentioned are quite good, and should be for a long time.

I see Thomas as being more damaging as a flanker/winger is all, much like Bruce.

Sure he can play midfield, but he might be more dangerous on a flank, that was my point.

Swan, Pendlbury and Shaw are all good, but you need more than that. Midfields are getting longer, look at Melbournes:

Green
Bruce
Johnstone
McLean
Sylvia
Pickett
Jones
Bate
Bartram
McDonald

And there's more waiting to get a chance...

All the above get a game pretty much every week and all get time through the midfield. You need more rotations, and you need more depth to the midfield these days.

As I said, a midfield can be fixed on the fly, KPP's can't (Melbourne had to rebuild our midfield almost entirely over the space of two or three years, it worked) so I don't envisage you guys having a really bad time with the way you've drafted.

but I can picture a season similar to the one we had in 2003 coming up for you blokes.

Yes, all good points. But don't forget we also have the likes of Shane O'Bree and Brodie Holland. Now, before I get howled down, let me just say that I know they're not silk. But what they are, IMO, is solid second-string mids. They get exposed and occasionally made to look crap at the moment because we're asking them to be frontliners -- and they're simply not up to that. But when Thomas, Pendlebury and company emerge as frontline mids that'll allow the likes of O'Bree and Holland to reassume their rightful spot in the pecking order: second stringers. And that's a role they can perform. So we do run a little deeper than the four mids I named.

I do agree, though, that in the short term I think we're gonna have to grit our teeth -- because we're gonna be outgunned in the midfield until we can get games and kgs into the four mids I named.

 

[MarkT]

SO what we blew it in 02/03 . Its happened and I have moved on.

OK. So what has since changed to make you think we won’t continue to blow it? Hine? Yep I agree he seems a lot better than Judkins. What else has changed? Is that enough? IMO not nearly so.

We still have Judkins. We have now decided to dump Balme. What changed after all this time there? Last year we have the review to end all reviews. I actually asked about this at the AGM. Now we see the bloke who did the review and got the job to bring some accountability to the club has been axed following the next review.

We make a lot of money. We also do a lot poorly and we are unaccountable for most of it.

Therefor I think Mick must be good at something as IMO he got the team to over acheive in those years. I think those years entitled him to a couple of years grace. but clearly you are alot less forgiving than I am.

At the time I agreed. During 2005 I concluded he was not going to win us a premiership. What are the skills a coach needs? Tactical nouse? The ability to make moves to change a game? Talent identification? Team selection and player utilisation? Flexibility? The ability to deal with all types of characters? The ability to resurrect strained relationships within the club? What else?

Agreed the best people does help but just because Eddie says "only the best for collingwood" does not mean we can always get the best. I will say it again , eddie is a politician and says things to make members happy.

Of course. And my point (well one them) is that you need to cut through that and make judgements. In the end the results are the arbiter. Our results don’t stack up.