Collingwood (& MM's) problem

[PieLebo87]

I was reading Healy's article in today's HUN and it got me thinking about Collingwood and what we lack to become a Premiership side. He pretty much said what we all know and that although we've now got depth, and we've got the equality in the starting 22, we do lack the superstars that can bring home flags.

Mick Malthouse is famous for bringing out the best in 'average' teams. But I also realised that its his down-fall, and the reason why in 10 seasons at Collingwood, we haven't won a flag. Its never been about our list, its always been about his focus on TEAM success, instead of appropriate individual development.

We always hear that its better to have a champion team than a team of champions, but the simple truth is that there are no Premiership sides in the history of this game without at least one superstar.

What we lack, and are trying to rectify is to instead of build a champion team (which is created in the process), we need to allow individual talents to develop their own games and take their games to the optimium levels and become superstars of the competition because for too long MM and Collingwood have been about team-orientated game-plans and structures that involve the whole side overall where we need to be focusing our powers on the very pros of our best players.

Malthouse took a baby step forward a few years ago when he turned himself and Collingwood from a defensive side, to an attacking because of the types of star players we have in Didak, Davis, Thomas ect. but he needs to continue on with that mentality and now focus on the likes of Travis Cloke, who is on his way to becoming a superstar forward of the league. Instead of going down the wings, we need to create an appropriate gameplan which will have Cloke in the game for longer, because Cloke is a massive piece of that Premiership puzzle for us and if he can improve his work rate that bit more and find ways to be more influencial for longer in games as well as gather more possessions, it'll be the necessary step made to making him a superstar forward in the league. These are the simple flaws which separate him from the true superstar forwards of the competition in Pavlich, Franklin and Brown.

Same situation goes for other Magpies like Didak, Davis, Thomas and Pendlebury who are well and trully heading in the right direction to taking over Buckley and Burns status as AFL superstar but we need to continue to alter our game plans to suit the playing styles of these guys to ensure they are getting the most out of themselves and taking the necessary steps to being the best players they can, which we know is frighteningly good.

Alan Didak needs to become more consistent with his performances, and as Healy stated, he is clearly the most dominant of the smalls and has already won a Best & Fairest and an All-Australian, theres nothing stopping him, but himself from winning more of those, and that as well would well and trully be a step closer to the Magpies holding the Premiership Cup on that last day of September.

I hope that all made sense. What are your thoughts?

 

[Pie eyed]

I was reading Healy's article in today's HUN and it got me thinking about Collingwood and what we lack to become a Premiership side. He pretty much said what we all know and that although we've now got depth, and we've got the equality in the starting 22, we do lack the superstars that can bring home flags.

Mick Malthouse is famous for bringing out the best in 'average' teams. But I also realised that its his down-fall, and the reason why in 10 seasons at Collingwood, we haven't won a flag. Its never been about our list, its always been about his focus on TEAM success, instead of appropriate individual development.

We always hear that its better to have a champion team than a team of champions, but the simple truth is that there are no Premiership sides in the history of this game without at least one superstar.

What we lack, and are trying to rectify is to instead of build a champion team (which is created in the process), we need to allow individual talents to develop their own games and take their games to the optimium levels and become superstars of the competition because for too long MM and Collingwood have been about team-orientated game-plans and structures that involve the whole side overall where we need to be focusing our powers on the very pros of our best players.

Malthouse took a baby step forward a few years ago when he turned himself and Collingwood from a defensive side, to an attacking because of the types of star players we have in Didak, Davis, Thomas ect. but he needs to continue on with that mentality and now focus on the likes of Travis Cloke, who is on his way to becoming a superstar forward of the league. Instead of going down the wings, we need to create an appropriate gameplan which will have Cloke in the game for longer, because Cloke is a massive piece of that Premiership puzzle for us and if he can improve his work rate that bit more and find ways to be more influencial for longer in games as well as gather more possessions, it'll be the necessary step made to making him a superstar forward in the league. These are the simple flaws which separate him from the true superstar forwards of the competition in Pavlich, Franklin and Brown.

Same situation goes for other Magpies like Didak, Davis, Thomas and Pendlebury who are well and trully heading in the right direction to taking over Buckley and Burns status as AFL superstar but we need to continue to alter our game plans to suit the playing styles of these guys to ensure they are getting the most out of themselves and taking the necessary steps to being the best players they can, which we know is frighteningly good.

Alan Didak needs to become more consistent with his performances, and as Healy stated, he is clearly the most dominant of the smalls and has already won a Best & Fairest and an All-Australian, theres nothing stopping him, but himself from winning more of those, and that as well would well and trully be a step closer to the Magpies holding the Premiership Cup on that last day of September.

I hope that all made sense. What are your thoughts?

Healy and you by taking up his story point out that we have no "superstars".

Do you think we have no players who could become superstars?

Isn't it true that most, not all, but most players are regarded as superstars after they have won a flag?

We have Cloke, Didak, Thomas, Pendlebury, Beams, Sidebottom, Brown.N, Swan, Anthony and a few more who are all within a whisker, a great season and a couple of more years of experience of becoming "superstars" don't you agree?

 

[mattys123]

I agree with most of what you have said, but I dont see MM as the sole problem here.
Surely each year the Collingwood board does a yearly review, and surely they would have advised MM of what the plan that they wanted is.

I believe MM will not change his style too much, just as coaches like Dennis Pagan and Terry Wallace have never changed their game styles.

This may well be MM undoing in the end, but I can see where he and the Collingwood football direction is coming from.

No team wins a flag by playing "individual" football, no team ever has or ever will.

MM lives and dies by the motto:

"A Champion Team will always beat a Team of Champions".

Unfortunately for MM and us, at the moment he has neither, and the short term doesnt look like bringing about that champion team, although Hawthorn went from a side that scraped into the 8 to a premiership winning team in 12 Months, so there is hope.

 

[Axl the great]

Best Thread i have seen on here in ages!
PieLebo is spot on, MMs defensive style, and overall team orientated gameplan has worked well over the years and suits teams with a lack of brilliance to be highly competitive week in week out.
But... It can stunt flair and development of invidual brilliance in players due to its regimented style, The game plan now will always have us thereabouts but never serious contenders unless it is tweaked and players are given a bit more freedom to be bold and really attack the game going forward.
Huge changes are not called for but a definate re jig is in order if we are to become less predictable and a more dangerous side.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

His biggest issue is he is a back pocket plumber & doesn't know how to adequately harness players with outright talent. With the list had in the 90's, they should have won 4 premierships in that decade.

He will always give preference to the limited skilled player, i.e. Toovey, over the talented player.

 

[PieLebo87]

Healy and you by taking up his story point out that we have no "superstars".

Do you think we have no players who could become superstars?

Isn't it true that most, not all, but most players are regarded as superstars after they have won a flag?

We have Cloke, Didak, Thomas, Pendlebury, Beams, Sidebottom, Brown.N, Swan, Anthony and a few more who are all within a whisker, a great season and a couple of more years of experience of becoming "superstars" don't you agree?

You're repeating what I'm saying, or/and have misunderstood me.

I stated that we've got numerous players that could become superstars, and it wouldn't require a Premiership for them to become superstars, but by deploying a gameplan which enables them to become superstars is what'll be that final piece of that puzzle which wins us a Premiership.

 

[mdc]

Isn't it true that most, not all, but most players are regarded as superstars after they have won a flag?

Very good players are often elevated to "great" status after a flag. But superstars are self-evident. Juddmania kicked in to gear well before they won a flag. Buddy Love became phenomena before the Hawks won a flag. Reiwoldt, Pavlich etc...there are plenty of counter-examples.

If we win a flag, it's players like Swan and Davis that will be higher regarded, but no-one is going to suddenly be crowned a superstar on the basis of a GF win.

We have Cloke, Didak, Thomas, Pendlebury, Beams, Sidebottom, Brown.N, Swan, Anthony and a few more who are all within a whisker, a great season and a couple of more years of experience of becoming "superstars" don't you agree?

In terms of output/upside, I'd have the listed as;

Cloke: Output 7, upside 7.5
Didak: Output 7, upside 9 (as a HFF)
Thomas: Output 6, upside 8
Pendlebury: Output 8.5, upside 9.5
Beams: N/A
Sidebottom: N/A
Brown: Output 4, upside 7.5
Swan: Output 8, upside 8
Anthony: Output 6, upside 7

Just my 2c.

For reference, 9 is edging the superstar bracket, 9.5 is firmly in there, 10 is a generational players (i.e. Voss/Buckley/Hird, Judd/Yablett). 8.5 is your Corey/Power types. 8 is your Swan types. Below that are good but not great players.

On the other hand, if you look at Hawthorn's midfield, they don't really have anyone I'd rate a true superstar either. They do, however, have several guys in that 8-9 bracket. Plus, obviously, they have two 9+ players up front.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

Don't forget Malthouse had at his disposal, Noel Judkins, who built the Essendon 2000 Premiership list. Malthouse interfered with recruiting personally as his preference was to draft fat arsed wombats, i.e. Shak & David King (who Judkins said that he wouldn't have drafted either).

 

[PieLebo87]

Best Thread i have seen on here in ages!
PieLebo is spot on, MMs defensive style, and overall team orientated gameplan has worked well over the years and suits teams with a lack of brilliance to be highly competitive week in week out.
But... It can stunt flair and development of invidual brilliance in players due to its regimented style, The game plan now will always have us thereabouts but never serious contenders unless it is tweaked and players are given a bit more freedom to be bold and really attack the game going forward.
Huge changes are not called for but a definate re jig is in order if we are to become less predictable and a more dangerous side.

Exactly right, I couldn't have said it better myself. I wasn't having a go at Collingwood, MM or our gameplan, I simply meant what Axl has said. Lol you managed to say exactly what I meant in a paragraph and it took me almost a page.

No that's rubbish.. Malthouse never had Hine until recently.. that's why the list was always ordinary.. I believe Hine has unearthed a couple of those superstars we lack but they are too young at the moment

So what do you call players like Buckley, Burns, Licuria, Clement, Tarrant, Rocca, Prestigiacomo, Wakelin and Nick Davis? All capable of being a part of a Premiership and if coached more appropriately, could've become superstars. Some did.

They were in their prime back then.

 

[Pie eyed]

Very good players are often elevated to "great" status after a flag. But superstars are self-evident. Juddmania kicked in to gear well before they won a flag. Buddy Love became phenomena before the Hawks won a flag. Reiwoldt, Pavlich etc...there are plenty of counter-examples.

If we win a flag, it's players like Swan and Davis that will be higher regarded, but no-one is going to suddenly be crowned a superstar on the basis of a GF win.



In terms of output/upside, I'd have the listed as;

Cloke: Output 7, upside 7.5
Didak: Output 7, upside 9 (as a HFF)
Thomas: Output 6, upside 8
Pendlebury: Output 8.5, upside 9.5
Beams: N/A
Sidebottom: N/A
Brown: Output 4, upside 7.5
Swan: Output 8, upside 8
Anthony: Output 6, upside 7

Just my 2c.

For reference, 9 is edging the superstar bracket, 9.5 is firmly in there, 10 is a generational players (i.e. Voss/Buckley/Hird, Judd/Yablett). 8.5 is your Corey/Power types. 8 is your Swan types. Below that are good but not great players.

On the other hand, if you look at Hawthorn's midfield, they don't really have anyone I'd rate a true superstar either. They do, however, have several guys in that 8-9 bracket. Plus, obviously, they have two 9+ players up front.

I would put Thomas in the same bracket as Pendles and also see Anthony, given his 13 games, with a chance to become something awesome.

I think your rating system is a bit off in that I see "superstar" only really applying to maybe 5 players in the entire comptetition.

The tendencey to have to claim a "superstar" in every side is media driven.

Current "superstars" in my mind are:

Gary Ablett Jnr.
Buddy Franklin
Luke Hodge
Andrew McCleod
Dean Cox
Joel Selwood (has just tipped into the group, whether he can maintain his status depends on time.)

Nathan Foley is on the cusp.

You'll notice that apart from Cox and McCleod all are surrounded by extremely even, quality sides but they stand out as the best player.
Al are also, apart from Cox mid sized players who play well out of their weight division.

Out of 640 listed players that is little less then 1% of players I would consider as "superstars".

Elite is a different category and I would only add another 2% on top of the above named 1% over all sides.

The vast majority of players are simply team members.


None of the above are "heroes" or "legends" yet.

 

[PieLebo87]

You really want me to compare our list back then to the team we played in those Grand Finals?

It was workmanlike thanks to some shocking recruiting.

I'm not going to fall for that workmanlike crap. Alright, you make one GF by luck with a workmanlike list, but you don't make two in a row with a list less than capable of winning a Premiership.

I already named 9 players all capable of being or were superstars of the league, thats half a side out on the footy field.

 

[FuManchu]

As it stands, we have no superstars. But most teams dont. There are really only 3 or 4 in the game at any given time. You might get periods were there are a few more, but not at the moment.

At the moment, we may have one player that may be termed potentially excellent in pendlebury. Then a number potentially termed 'very good' in Thomas, Shaw and Cloke. They are going to be the next generation we have look to. Didak is very good, but not a superstar, and probably not even excellent given he can run a little hot and cold, same too for Davis, but his stocks are rising. But he like Didak wont be around in 5 to 7 years.

MM, as has been stated, likes to coach in the mould he played. defensive, gritty, team orientated football. I am not sure he would know how to deal with a superstar. As I always got the impression his and Buck's relationship was at times a little strained. Possibly two very strong egos when it came to football matters. He wants his teams to fight valiantly and his game plan is not structured around individual flair. I always got the impressio Bucks was about direct football as opposed to the game plan MM wants used.

But gritty football works to a point. And its OK if your team is physically mature to be ultra tackling all game, every game. But at the moment we are still very young and not able to sustain that intensity. But there still comes a time when the individual needs to impose himself to get things going whereas I think MM just thinks system system system will get you there. But his 50% record tends to belie that a little.

I am sure every time Thomas does that little something special, MM cringes deep down, its just not his style to be lairy.

 

[PieLebo87]

Don't forget Malthouse had at his disposal, Noel Judkins, who built the Essendon 2000 Premiership list. Malthouse interfered with recruiting personally as his preference was to draft fat arsed wombats, i.e. Shak & David King (who Judkins said that he wouldn't have drafted either).

Rubbish.. go get a public schoool education Ro.. you're dumber than a sack of doorknobs

I don't know if theres a bit of sarcasm between you two, but RC is right on the money. Hine shouldn't be used as an excuse, because we had Judkins back then.

 

[mdc]

Current "superstars" in my mind are:

Gary Ablett Jnr.
Buddy Franklin
Luke Hodge
Andrew McCleod
Dean Cox
Joel Selwood (has just tipped into the group, whether he can maintain his status depends on time.)

Nathan Foley is on the cusp.

Definitions aside, how on earth either of those 2 players made your esteemed group baffles me. I wouldn't have either in the top 30 players in the league.

And you would never convince me that Hodge and Selwood are ahead of Pavlich and Black, for example. That, I believe, is media-driven.

 

[hellfire]

As it stands, we have no superstars. But most teams dont. There are really only 3 or 4 in the game at any given time. You might get periods were there are a few more, but not at the moment.

Hmmm, I beg to differ.

Ablett, Franklin, Judd, Riewoldt, Pavlich, J.Brown, Harvey, Cox, Hodge, Goodes, Fevola...

Then there is the next group with the likes of Bartel, Mitchell, Selwood, Richo, Cooney, Black (could arguably be superstar) etc. etc.

We don't even have one in that group!

 

[PieLebo87]

Yeah it was a team of superstars... oh wait that was Brisbane

I don't think you have a clue mate.

Its not very easy to make a Grand Final, let alone two in a row, so name for me a team thats done it with a 'workmanlike team'.

Buckley was a superstar of the competition. Rocca, Clement, Burns and Licuria were the stars (and would've been elevated to 'greats' as mdc said if we'd won a flag), and there were names like Tarrant, Presti and N Davis who were in the top tier of quality players in the league during their prime years.

Seriously, get a clue, then actually back your arguments instead of just bad-mouthing others opinions.

 

[Pie eyed]

Definitions aside, how on earth either of those 2 players made your esteemed group baffles me. I wouldn't have either in the top 30 players in the league.

And you would never convince me that Hodge and Selwood are ahead of Pavlich and Black, for example. That, I believe, is media-driven.

Pavlich stands out ia poor side.
Foley stands out ina very poor side, but as I say is on the cusp.
Selwood is just over the line this week and will more than likely struggle to stay in.

McCleod has always rated with me and yes this categorisation of players is very subjective, and I retain my right o my subjective opinion.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

Hine shouldn't be used as an excuse, because we had Judkins back then.

& Judkins was recognized as the best recruiter in the business after he built the 2000 Essendon Premiership side. Judkins has admitted that Malthouse wrongly interfered with his drafting, in 2000, the Pick 3 could have setup us for a flag but Malthouse downgraded the pick (against Judkins).

We also had Tarrant (who kicked 50 goals plus in 2001), Nick Davis, Burns, Buckley (AA in 03), Clement (AA), Rocca, Fraser (who had a career year in 2003) & Didak on the list. All very talented players who could never been labelled as workmanlike. 1 of those players was crucial in delivering a flag elsewhere.

There is no such thing as overachieving, MM had a talented side on his hand and was unable to deliver.

 

[mdc]

Pavlich stands out ia poor side.
Foley stands out ina very poor side, but as I say is on the cusp.
Selwood is just over the line this week and will more than likely struggle to stay in.

McCleod has always rated with me and yes this categorisation of players is very subjective, and I retain my right o my subjective opinion.

Well, of course. But if your sphere of superstars contains 7, say, and mine contains 9, and hardly any of them match...and then Bob has 8 of his own that have little cross-over with either of ours...

Isn't the rational conclusion then that the objective realm of superstars is either 2 (i.e. Yablett and Buddy who would be common among all lists), or OTOH closer to 25?

 

[Pie eyed]

You're repeating what I'm saying, or/and have misunderstood me.

I stated that we've got numerous players that could become superstars, and it wouldn't require a Premiership for them to become superstars, but by deploying a gameplan which enables them to become superstars is what'll be that final piece of that puzzle which wins us a Premiership.

Sorry PieLebo, I think I did misconstrue your OP.

Cheers and I agree.

 

[FuManchu]

Hmmm, I beg to differ.

Ablett, Franklin, Judd, Riewoldt, Pavlich, J.Brown, Harvey, Cox, Hodge, Goodes, Fevola...

Then there is the next group with the likes of Bartel, Mitchell, Selwood, Richo, Cooney, Black (could arguably be superstar) etc. etc.

We don't even have one in that group!

This is where I feel we overdo the term superstar.

The first three I have no qualms about.

But Riewoldt hasnt had a stellar year ever, he has shown glimpses heer and there, but either thru injury or inaccuracy he just doesnt impose himself week after week

Pavlich, nope, sorry, misses too much to be considered up there with the likes of a carey, which is the benchmark he needs to aspire to. last year case in point, lost a number of games he alone had the chance to nail in the last minutes. Superstars win those. He is very very good tho

J Brown, in 2007 had the best half season I have seen from a footballer since one P Carmen back in 1975. But since that he has slid back a notch. I always think he has some injury concerns. But if he puts it together he will shoot to the top, better than the first three. he has it all, except a period of total domination like carey had. Not far off it tho

Harvey, underrated, but not superstar. Perhaps his size counts against him, not sure. But what I would do to have him in our midfield.

Cox, mmmm nope, last year showed a little about how he worked well with a premium midfield with Judd, cuzz and kerr prior to that. He might be the best ruck in a decade, but its not enough, he doesnt win matches, he has fed a midfield that did win matches tho. But they didnt rely on him entirely, they were that good in themselves. Excellent,but not superstar.

Hodge, interesting one. he's a general. Probably one of the best tacticians/players. mmmmmmm borderline

goodes, nope

Fev, well, he could be anything. And this may have been the year, but maybe, just maybe he has an injury that may severely restrict him. Bruised heels, when you weigh 105 kg and need to run fast, tend not to heal ( pardon the pun). could be, would be, but is he?

Another measure is who would you go to watch play football. Ablett, Judd, Franklin, yep. the others nah.

From Collingwood, from the time I remember following the game, 1968 on, McKenna, Carmen, Daicos, Bucks. all superstars. But not many of them.

 

[Pie eyed]

Hmmm, I beg to differ.

Ablett, Franklin, Judd, Riewoldt, Pavlich, J.Brown, Harvey, Cox, Hodge, Goodes, Fevola...

Then there is the next group with the likes of Bartel, Mitchell, Selwood, Richo, Cooney, Black (could arguably be superstar) etc. etc.

We don't even have one in that group!

Firstly we are only dealing with "superstars" not the multitude of "Elite" so the second group don't get a mention.
Secondly, Fev, Brown and Riewoldt are too inconsistent.
Judd may have been but is no more.
Goodes never was and never will be, he just happens to be Sydney's best.
Harvey...from NM? LOL. Sure he ripped us a new one once. Elite no SS.

Definitions aside, how on earth either of those 2 players made your esteemed group baffles me. I wouldn't have either in the top 30 players in the league.

And you would never convince me that Hodge and Selwood are ahead of Pavlich and Black, for example. That, I believe, is media-driven.

Hodge as a defensive player is streets ahead of Pavlich. Pavlich shines in a very ordinary side. Not that I would not have him.
Black well we'll have to differ there. Black is good but,....

Well, of course. But if your sphere of superstars contains 7, say, and mine contains 9, and hardly any of them match...and then Bob has 8 of his own that have little cross-over with either of ours...

Isn't the rational conclusion then that the objective realm of superstars is either 2 (i.e. Yablett and Buddy who would be common among all lists), or OTOH closer to 25?

I would agree if the multitude rate the same 2 then in effect they elect themselves as the "superstars"

 

[mdc]

Pavlich, nope, sorry, misses too much to be considered up there with the likes of a carey

He missed a couple of shots last year in crucial situations, but this is certainly not typical for him.

In fact, if you look up the numbers, Pavlich and Carey have identical conversion rates, both at roughly 61.5% for their career.

 

[PieLebo87]

lol stick to the topic ladies and gentlemen! This is about Collingwood, not other teams and their players.

 

[hellfire]

Sorry Pie Eyed, by if you're laughing at the suggestion of Harvey being a superstar, you're a little deluded. Extremely consistent, extremely damaging, very underrated. If he's not there he's mighty close.

And I guess it all comes down to opinion, if you don't rate someone like Pavlich or Goodes as a superstar, that's your opinion, but a case can easily be made. These guys are brilliant players.