Collingwood (& MM's) problem

[FuManchu]

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.

Its the intangibles that Carey had that sets him apart from Pavlich.

Pavlich looks to have it all, except that X factor where he imposes himself at the right moments. He looks 'clinical' to me. Carey, G Ablett snr, Matthews, J Brown, Dermie etc, they just had that sheer mongrel and will and plenty of talent. And they won matches , many matches from their own deeds. Pavlich is lacking something. Thats not to say I wouldnt have him at Collingwood, far from it, but he is not a superstar. There are very few superstars.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

It's dangerous to compare players from different era on stats and the like.
For one Carey would not have benefited from the numerous uncontested possession players do these days.

 

[hellfire]

And yes, I agree with the OP.

Let's go back over the recent premiers and look at their elite players:

2008 - Hodge, Franklin, Mitchell.
2007 - Ablett, Bartel, Corey
2006 - Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Cox
2005 - Hall, Goodes
2004 - Tredrea, K.Cornes, C.Cornes (Wanganeen and Burgoyne too if you want)
2003 - Voss, Black, Aker, Lynch
2002 - As above
2001 - As above
2000 - Hird, Lloyd
1999 - Carey, McKernan, Bell
1998 - Ricciuto, Mcleod

etc.

We have no players really on that level. Didak is close-ish, Pendlebury, Thomas and Cloke could get there... but until they do, we are no chance.

But in 2002-3... We did have a team that could do it. Buckley and Clement were on this level, we just didn't have the quality in the lower tiers IMO.

 

[FuManchu]

I'll revise what I said about Thomas. At the moment he is potentially very good.

But if he puts on another 5 to 7 kgs, and gets more time in the middle, and improves his kicking, as it leaves a little to be desired at times, he could be anything.

Maybe even superstar, but playing for Collingwood might elevate him a little artificially in some people's estimation due to the saturation exposure we get. But of all the players we have at the moment, he has the X factor ( well, davis and didak have it too, but maybe not like Thomas is showing it)

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

It's not as though it's a conscious decision by the club not to bring in superstars. We try like 15 other teams to bring in superstars from every avenue possible, but to this stage, we haven't been able to bring through a truly elite player since Clement and Buckley retired.

This is unfortunate, but ultimately, it's not the kind of thing that you can "focus on" and improve - Some players are drafted and turn into superstars, and some just become good players, and some are duds.

There's a fair bit of luck involved in seeing some of the "good players" turn into legitimate stars of the competition. Geelong might have been licking their lips to get their hands on Selwood, but it's not as though it was a guarantee he'd be a superstar. Likewise with Hawthorn and Buddy.

 

[mdc]

It's dangerous to compare players from different era on stats and the like.
For one Carey would not have benefited from the numerous uncontested possession players do these days.

If I was comparing possessions or marks or whatever, I'd agree.

But all I was doing is responding to the assertion that Pavlich misses too much. He doesn't. And accuracy is certainly something that can be compared over eras, as long as the sticks and the Sherrin stay the same.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

Well we are talking "superstars".
It's no slur on Harvey he is only "elite".
There are plenty in this category.

When I was a young tacker there was only one.........."SUPERSTAR"

Peter Hudson.

and rightly so.

In my lifetime Collingwood has only had 3.

McKenna, Daicos and Buckley.

They are not a dime a dozen.."superstars"

 

[FuManchu]

Well we are talking "superstars".
It's no slur on Harvey he is only "elite".
There are plenty in this category.

When I was a young tacker there was only one.........."SUPERSTAR"

Peter Hudson.

and rightly so.

In my lifetime Collingwood has only had 3.

McKenna, Daicos and Buckley.

They are not a dime a dozen.."superstars"

dont forget Phil, he was the best of the damn lot. Just very short lived, and short fused.

ah the memories, especially that one hander in the forward pocket over Doull, 1978 finals! Rolled down the back of his arm while he was on Doulls shoulders and he just flung his hand out, grabbed it one handed and looked like a juggler finishing his act. Carmen was it and them some. Brain the size of a pea tho. No, actually very astute man, worst temper in the world

 

[Skade]

Same pie superstars I remember Pieyed ,you must be my age.

 

[FuManchu]

If I was comparing possessions or marks or whatever, I'd agree.

But all I was doing is responding to the assertion that Pavlich misses too much. He doesn't. And accuracy is certainly something that can be compared over eras, as long as the sticks and the Sherrin stay the same.

who would you want to take a shot after the siren? I'd take Carey as he knew he could do it. Even if he missed, he had no hesitation about his talents. Pavlich I reckon has doubts.

 

[MarkT]

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?

If that was true we would be winning flags. Having that many players as close as you claim to superstardom would bring a flag now given the rest of the side is supposed to be solid and they all pay as a team under a quality coach.

My take on that list:

Cloke – I’m a big fan but a superstar CHF kicks more reliably at goal unless they have Buddy’s freakish talent to compensate. He may get there. He will be a very good player for a decade (baring injury) at worst.
Didak – should be but isn’t. His best is worthy but it isn’t consistent enough and he is also a DH. You might say that isn’t relevant but it has clear impact on his on field output. He also makes some poor decisions on the field. Not going when it’s his turn, throwing a leg out, a silly back elbow or punch that gets him a week or two etc.
Thomas – could be but only time will tell. Has the attributes.
Pendlebury – Another I am a big fan of. Be nice if he was a bit harder and bit faster but I’m being picky. He is our star.
Beams & Sidebottom – honestly, you can’t drop in names of blokes yet to play a senior game. I liked what I saw pre season but a whisker or a couple of years off superstar is a heck of a stretch.
N. Brown – maybe. There are a few of his ilk around in the AFL. Look like they have the body and the ability and have time on their side. You’d think 1 or 2 will go on but sure as hell they won’t all be superstars.
Swan – no. Love him when he kicks that vital goal out of nowhere or racks up 10 gut busting possession in the last Q but he can’t kick well enough. Very good but not a superstar. He’s probably about at his best too.
Anthony – doubt it. Great kick and reliable most everything else. Doesn’t get enough possessions to be a superstar. Early days though and he has upside. So does nearly everyone drafted in the last 3 years.

You could also run through names like Clarke, O’Brien, Shaw and a few others. All good players and overall a group capable of solid results year in year out for a while to come.

Now we are back to the same old argument:

Where is the bar to be set?

 

[mdc]

who would you want to take a shot after the siren? I'd take Carey as he knew he could do it. Even if he missed, he had no hesitation about his talents. Pavlich I reckon has doubts.

Carey was the better player obviously (he has Pavlich owned in the explosiveness stakes), but I don't necessarily agree with your claim that Pavlich doubts his talents, or whatnot.

Who would I want to take a shot after the siren? I'd be pretty happy with either.

 

[MarkT]

In my lifetime Collingwood has only had 3.

McKenna, Daicos and Buckley.

Len Thompson – 5 Copelands and they were harder for him to win than they were for Buckley.
John Greening – possibly the best player of his time albeit a short time. Ordinarily I’d rule him out because of the short time frame but the circumstances perhaps alter that. He was at the very least the best player in the comp and the prototype for the modern player when he was felled.
Phil Carmen? For a while he was THE superstar but he didn’t sustain it. In 1975 he was the clear best player in the competition and every bit the match of Gary Ablett or Wayne Carey later.

 

[Pie eyed]

If that was true we would be winning flags. Having that many players as close as you claim to superstardom would bring a flag now given the rest of the side is supposed to be solid and they all pay as a team under a quality coach.

My take on that list:

Cloke – I’m a big fan but a superstar CHF kicks more reliably at goal unless they have Buddy’s freakish talent to compensate. He may get there. He will be a very good player for a decade (baring injury) at worst.
Didak – should be but isn’t. His best is worthy but it isn’t consistent enough and he is also a DH. You might say that isn’t relevant but it has clear impact on his on field output. He also makes some poor decisions on the field. Not going when it’s his turn, throwing a leg out, a silly back elbow or punch that gets him a week or two etc.
Thomas – could be but only time will tell. Has the attributes.
Pendlebury – Another I am a big fan of. Be nice if he was a bit harder and bit faster but I’m being picky. He is our star.
Beams & Sidebottom – honestly, you can’t drop in names of blokes yet to play a senior game. I liked what I saw pre season but a whisker or a couple of years off superstar is a heck of a stretch.
N. Brown – maybe. There are a few of his ilk around in the AFL. Look like they have the body and the ability and have time on their side. You’d think 1 or 2 will go on but sure as hell they won’t all be superstars.
Swan – no. Love him when he kicks that vital goal out of nowhere or racks up 10 gut busting possession in the last Q but he can’t kick well enough. Very good but not a superstar. He’s probably about at his best too.
Anthony – doubt it. Great kick and reliable most everything else. Doesn’t get enough possessions to be a superstar. Early days though and he has upside. So does nearly everyone drafted in the last 3 years.

You could also run through names like Clarke, O’Brien, Shaw and a few others. All good players and overall a group capable of solid results year in year out for a while to come.

Now where are back to the same old argument:

Where is the bar to be set?

I only worry about one bar.
I don't believe I stated anywhere in my post that any of our players are superstars, only that I believe those listed have the chance to be.

As far as back to the same old argument...I have given up arguing the same old topic which we as supporters have absolutely no controll over and in all probability have not real understanding of.

Just saying we have no superstars does nothing to make the side play better.
Then we manufacture thee superstars at other sides to illustrate how badly done by we are.

Phooey.

There are a finite number of "superstars" (probably 2, see below) so how do we share these around 16 sides?

It is time to just get on with it and win games.....for Christ's sake we have lost one game.


Go Pies.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

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!

Personally, I think only the four highlighted players are superstars. You could argue a case for Hodge and Cox, though, I suppose.

 

[FuManchu]

I only worry about one bar.
I don't believe I stated anywhere in my post that nay of our players are superstars, only that I believe those listed have the chance to be.

As far as back to the same old argument...I have given up arguing the same old topic which we as supporters have absolutely no controll over and in all probability have not real understanding of.

Just saying we have no superstars does nothing to make the side play better.
Then we manufacture thee superstars at other sides to illustrate how badly done by we are.

Phooey.

There are a finite number of "superstars" (probably 2, see below) so how do we share these around 16 sides?

It is time to just get on with it and win games.....for Christ's sake we have lost one game.


Go Pies.

What has losing last week got to do with the context of potential in the team? Its largely irrelevant in the long term context of which this discussion has evolved.

 

[MarkT]

It is time to just get on with it and win games.....for Christ's sake we have lost one game.

Isn't the discussion about how you do that sufficiently to win flags?

I agree with the posters that say you need stars. Maybe not in the best 2 or 3 category but your top 12 or so have to be among the top echelon and you have to be able to mount an argument about a few being in the top 5 or 10.

Consistently Collingwood have not had enough players in the upper echelon and consistently Collingwood supporters and in many ways the club have had a contrary view. The bottom line is the results. We can't be not winning flags while having sufficient starts and good coaches.

MM won 2 with West Coasts list. Hafey won 4 with Richmond’s. Mathews won 3 with Brisbane’s. The difference is the list.

Our club does poor self analysis and has for decades. Unfortunately I think this is eddies greatest personal failing so it’s not surprising that we still don’t win premierships.

 

[Pie eyed]

Personally, I think only the four highlighted players are superstars. You could argue a case for Hodge and Cox, though, I suppose.

As I said...Superstardom is very subjective.

 

[the_fresh]

Theres only one player on our whole list who gives his all and gives out every bit of skill he has every week and thats Swan.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

As I said...Superstardom is very subjective.

Indeed. And I wasn't taking issue with you.

 

[Pie eyed]

Indeed. And I wasn't taking issue with you.

I did not think you were.
My entire point in this entire thread is ...what is a superstar?

These catch phrases such as "legend", "elite", "champion", "superstar" and "mega star" are wholly abused, misused and misrepresented generally thanks to an over zealous media full of gushy youngsters eager to impress the handsome sub-editor.

In any era there are a few great players who you could deem to be superstars but who they are is very dependant on who you are and who you go for.

 

[FuManchu]

I did not think you were.
My entire point in this entire thread is ...what is a superstar?

These catch phrases such as "legend", "elite", "champion", "superstar" and "mega star" are wholly abused, misused and misrepresented generally thanks to an over zealous media full of gushy youngsters eager to impress the handsome sub-editor.

In any era there are a few great players who you could deem to be superstars but who they are is very dependant on who you are and who you go for.

Only a fool would be blind enough not to see the true worth of players on all lists.

Someone suggested Judd isnt the player he was 3 or so years back. The few things I saw him do last week, in traffic with such skill and with perfect execution just leads me to believe that we havent seen the best of him yet. At 25 and possibly his best pre season in a few years, he is ready, and its not as if you lose that ability at 25. He's got it, and FFS, I wish we had him.

 

[PieLebo87]

This thread has well and trully been de-railed. It wasn't a discussion about us having/not having 'superstars', its about Malthouse's gameplans and Collingwood's lack of self-analytical knowledge which restricts players in our list from fufilling their full potential to becoming equal stars to others in the league.

As stated in the OP, an example is to be more central towards Travis Cloke and get him more involved in games so that he isn't so hot and cold, because the way we enter our forward line, its as though its full of flankers, and Cloke is usually not treated as a CHF.

 

[kevind]

And yes, I agree with the OP.

Let's go back over the recent premiers and look at their elite players:

2008 - Hodge, Franklin, Mitchell.
2007 - Ablett, Bartel, Corey
2006 - Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Cox
2005 - Hall, Goodes
2004 - Tredrea, K.Cornes, C.Cornes (Wanganeen and Burgoyne too if you want)
2003 - Voss, Black, Aker, Lynch
2002 - As above
2001 - As above
2000 - Hird, Lloyd
1999 - Carey, McKernan, Bell
1998 - Ricciuto, Mcleod

etc.

We have no players really on that level. Didak is close-ish, Pendlebury, Thomas and Cloke could get there... but until they do, we are no chance.

But in 2002-3... We did have a team that could do it. Buckley and Clement were on this level, we just didn't have the quality in the lower tiers IMO.

Glaring ommission- Mathew Scarlett- arguably the best defender of last 15 years

 

[DoubleO7]

Glaring ommission- Mathew Scarlett- arguably the best defender of last 10 years

Edited for accuracy. You seem to have forgotten the great SOS who won his last AA guernsey back in '99.