Collingwood (& MM's) problem

[FuManchu]

Thought Buckley very subtly announced his intentions to coach us tonight..

Twice had a crack at MM during the commentary but very covertly

The first one basically said we are too predictable going around the boundary (calm down Fu) and the 2nd implied we didn't do our homework on Adelaide last week as St Kilda did

Obviously thinks he can do better

LOL, who me?

The plot thickens.

 

[kevind]

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

I did state arguably. Silvagni was a great player and more versatile than Scarlett as he could be a damaging forward,but he was a little lucky there was not the same rules/officiating in those days. Not saying he couldn't have adapted, I'm sure he could, but it was frustrating watching him perfect the infringment without giving away a free kick routine.

Of course neither of them come anywhere close to the greatest of full backs-Jack Regan.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

It is clear Bucks has a low opinion of Mick, subtle digs in the media & tonight reinforced this. There was an observation by Bruce or Dennis about the Crows prime movers being average, then Bucks stated that's what occurs when you do a bit of research on their good players.

He criticized Mick for letting Wells & Gibbs roam free last year, then launched an attack on letting McLeod run free.

Also criticized the boundary style gameplan Mick has implemented.

 

[NatheM]

All I'm gonna say is that some guys don't watch enough footy.

Most of this team are very early 20's. Now we all know that the prime age for a team is 27ish. What MM has done is rebuilt the team using absolute babies. But these babies have been good enough to get us far in the finals the last 2 years.
If we look at how Geelong and Hawthorn rebuilt then you can draw many comparisons to what's happening atm. But the fact is our average age is about 3 years off these teams.

Now, if we get rid of MM before our 22'yo players get to about 25, then that would be really silly imo. How are we to expect someone else on the outside to come in and continue with these players that are coming into their prime and do the job. If we lost MM not only do we lose a pro who we know can give a team all the chances in the world of winning a flag, but our prime players would have to learn a completely new game plan.
Kiss away 2 seasons with the new coach. And I don't trust 'Choco' or anyone else to come in and complete this team.
There's only one man, Bucks.
And if it doesn't happen right now, so Bucks can have the seasons of experience before the babies start reaching mid 20's, then it shouldn't happen untill MM has had the prime years of our baby stars.

Could cost us a flag if we start asking for MM's head because we finish 6th, 7th, 8th for the next couple of years. Don't forget, we will lose Rocca, Presti and Tarks, so it won't happen for at least 3 more seasons imo.

And if people watch footy games, all of them, every round for the last few seasons they would be laughing at some lists of players they believe are 'Superstars'
People say "Ablett, Selwood and Bartel" but a player far more skillful, influential and genius is Mr. Steve Johnson.
-=End Rant=-

 

[Pie eyed]

It is clear Bucks has a low opinion of Mick, subtle digs in the media & tonight reinforced this. There was an observation by Bruce or Dennis about the Crows prime movers being average, then Bucks stated that's what occurs when you do a bit of research on their good players.

He criticized Mick for letting Wells & Gibbs roam free last year, then launched an attack on letting McLeod run free.

Also criticized the boundary style gameplan Mick has implemented.

It is only clear to you because it is what you are always searching for...something to back up your bias.
You could make a conspiracy out of a badly timed cough.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

It is only clear to you because it is what you are always searching for...something to back up your bias.
You could make a conspiracy out of a badly timed cough.

Don't really hold anything against Mick so that's a void statement. Was a clear criticism by Buckley that was plain to see to even the most ardent MM follower.

I personally believe an outsider needs a crack at the job when his time is up, therefore I'm not on the Buckley bandwagon.

 

[MarkT]

I thought Buckley's comments were very interesting too. I HOPE he was having a deliberate go at Malthouse and I HOPE Eddie was listenning.

 

[FuManchu]

If todays match continues in the vain it currently is, there will be huge problems. 13 points.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

I thought Buckley's comments were very interesting too. I HOPE he was having a deliberate go at Malthouse and I HOPE Eddie was listening.

Same here Mark. Bucks normally is ardent in his support for all things Collingwood.

The comments weren't just off the cuff remarks either.

In the interview with McLeod he asked him whether he was surprised that Collingwood didn't pay him attention last week, then was another snipe during the last quarter.

 

[Snag Breac]

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.

Beams passed it him beautifully today, right in the middle, and he scored. Cloke would be so much more effective if he got it that way regularly, instead of always on the boundary line.

Sorry, another derailment.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Also criticized the boundary style gameplan Mick has implemented.

I agree with Bucks too. It's so outdated and old fashioned, I can't stand to watch it sometimes!

Perhaps Malthouse is just extremely stubborn? I don't know, but what I do know is how much AFL has evolved in the last few years and it showed especially against the Crows.

Even today a wooden-spooner team like Melbourne effortlessly moved the ball in their first quarter today straight down the middle. Much more effecient than the way we attacked which maybe one of the reasons it's so hard for the Pies to get a good start in the game week in, week out?

If you watch the game again have a look at how well they move the ball.

However, I can understand Malthouses vision though, it could work. But I could only see his game plan working well if we had the forward presence and dominating forwards that could take heavily contested marks ( Brown's, Franklin's,Carey's, Riewoldt's) etc.. The problems is we don't have this. Poor Travis doesn't have the ability to do this and he needs support anyway. At the moment it's very easy for teams to get numbers back against us while we're slowly moving down the wing.

It was also interesting during the week to see Malthouse blame the lack of (I don't know how he put it exactly) "talent" that we have in the midfield to be able to go straight down the corrider with confidence.

The question that now has to be asked is, then why have we persisted with guys in the middle like O'Bree and Bryan on the team for sooo long if this is the case? Why has it taken Malthouse so long to address this issue?

 

[ant22]

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.

Not sure I agree. We have been one of the highest scoring sides in the comp over the last 2 years. I believe the problem has been our midfield and the backline last year was also an issue. I think that both are on the improve. Nath Brown seems to be imporving all the time and harry obrien in my opinion has one of the best mid(dangerous short or 3rd tall defenders) in the game. Depsite his poor showing last week I am confident that Reid is the man to replace presti and goldsack also have alot of defensive talent. Our midfield will be a little inconsistent this year but it is getting better. Pendles has improve is clearance work out of site so we now have 2 blokes still pretty young in swan and pendles who can win alot of the footy. We have a few great blokes who are a little more outside with polish in Didak, Davis and Thomas. With Beams and Sidebottom coming through I think our midfield will improve alot over the next 3 years.

I also want to comment on Didak. I can't believe people would say he is still not consistant. In 2006 he was AA and had a partial knee reco at the end of that season. He missed the entire 2007 pre-season and did not play until late april. By the finals he had finally regained fitness and was arguably our best player in the 2007 finals series where we just missed playing in a gf. Last year he led the comp in kicks(by a mile) was leading our b and f and was on track for his 2nd AA in 3 years. For someone who people still consider to be a HFF thats pretty bloody consistant.

 

[Pie eyed]

I think we need this game plan but not as most would think.

I think we need it as a "baseline" and a fall back if all else fails.

That said we need to be developing a more direct attacking "offensive" game plan as a first weapon of choice.

1. Direct corridor footy.
2. Man on Man
3. Our standard wide game.

That would give the side far more flexibility in tight situations.

 

[mattys123]

The only problem with changing our gameplan so we play more through the centre corridor, is that we would have to change almost our entire side.

We would have to trade Pendlebury, Swan, O'bree, Lockyer, Clarke, Didak and all the slower midfield players we have.

To play a centre focused game these days, you need pace, pace and a shit load of pace. You need to handball, you need to take risks, and you need to run fast, hard and have great evasive abilities also.

Geelong and the dogs are the best at this gameplan, and our side is so different to theirs, that if we implemented a similar "middle" focused plan, we would most likely win 3 more games all year (Melbourne and Essendon x 2).

MM admitted as much the other day on On the Couch, when he said his current side does not have the right make up to do this.

So even if MM leaves at the end of the year, the new coach wont be able to implement a central gameplan unless he makes huge changes to our midfield and half back rotation.

 

[Quicky]

I think we need this game plan but not as most would think.

I think we need it as a "baseline" and a fall back if all else fails.

That said we need to be developing a more direct attacking "offensive" game plan as a first weapon of choice.

1. Direct corridor footy.
2. Man on Man
3. Our standard wide game.

That would give the side far more flexibility in tight situations.

Well said Pie Eyed. I think this is what we should be aiming for. It would make us much more versatile and much less predictable.

 

[Quicky]

The only problem with changing our gameplan so we play more through the centre corridor, is that we would have to change almost our entire side.

We would have to trade Pendlebury, Swan, O'bree, Lockyer, Clarke, Didak and all the slower midfield players we have.

To play a centre focused game these days, you need pace, pace and a shit load of pace. You need to handball, you need to take risks, and you need to run fast, hard and have great evasive abilities also.

Geelong and the dogs are the best at this gameplan, and our side is so different to theirs, that if we implemented a similar "middle" focused plan, we would most likely win 3 more games all year (Melbourne and Essendon x 2).

MM admitted as much the other day on On the Couch, when he said his current side does not have the right make up to do this.

So even if MM leaves at the end of the year, the new coach wont be able to implement a central gameplan unless he makes huge changes to our midfield and half back rotation.

Thats just not true. Neither Hawthorn nor Geelong, who are the best teams at playing through the corridor, have very fast midfielders. What you need is hard bodied, well rounded midfielders (good skills, can play inside and out), with good endurance. Its not speed that holds us back its the quality of our midfielders both in terms of their experience and years in the system (Pendlebury, Thomas, McCarthy, Wellingham, Beams, Sidebottom) as well as a touch of quality (O'Bree, Cook). The only midfielder that we have who fits the above category is Swan and maybe Davis. We're getting there but we will need a few more years experience and physical development in some of the above players before we can really play that game style to a really good standard. A half competent ruckman to back up Fraser would help too.

 

[Pie eyed]

The only problem with changing our gameplan so we play more through the centre corridor, is that we would have to change almost our entire side.

We would have to trade Pendlebury, Swan, O'bree, Lockyer, Clarke, Didak and all the slower midfield players we have.

To play a centre focused game these days, you need pace, pace and a shit load of pace. You need to handball, you need to take risks, and you need to run fast, hard and have great evasive abilities also.

Geelong and the dogs are the best at this gameplan, and our side is so different to theirs, that if we implemented a similar "middle" focused plan, we would most likely win 3 more games all year (Melbourne and Essendon x 2).
I don't agree at all about pace being a great prerquisite for playing through the corridor.

Geelong's game plan is really very simple.
Go forward at all costs, even in defence.
You have a whole side which knows the game plan and is willing to implement it.
Once the ball get in the forward line the whole side commits to keeping it there until eventually they score.
Geelong's forward line is by no means the best in terms of marking or kicking, in fact they are one of the most inaccurate. They rely on hard bodies to keep the ball in the area which is most likely to result in a score.
Geelong overwhelm other sides with a willingness to take risks to accomplish a very basic strategy.

It takes similar strategy to fishing.

The more time you have a line in the water the more fish you catch.

MM admitted as much the other day on On the Couch, when he said his current side does not have the right make up to do this.

So even if MM leaves at the end of the year, the new coach wont be able to implement a central gameplan unless he makes huge changes to our midfield and half back rotation.

I don't agree at all about pace being a great prerequisite for playing through the corridor.

Geelong's game plan is really very simple.
Go forward at all costs, even in defence.
You have a whole side which knows the game plan and is willing to implement it.
Once the ball gets in the forward line the whole side commits to keeping it there until eventually they score.
The opposition can't score if the ball is down the other end.
No matter how long it takes to score the Cats benefit sooner or later.
Geelong's forward line is by no means the best in terms of marking or kicking, in fact they are one of the most inaccurate. They rely on hard bodies to keep the ball in the area which is most likely to result in a score.
Geelong overwhelm other sides with a willingness to take risks to accomplish a very basic strategy. It is simple but it works.

It takes a similar strategy to a successful fisherman.

The more time you have a line in the water the more fish you catch.

 

[goalpie]

His biggest problem is basic skills like kicking etc. In 10 years of coaching, this area hasnt improved which is a concern as other teams have managed it. Modern football is all about good skills.

 

[DoubleO7]

Can you say dissonance?

 

[Pie eyed]

Can you say dissonance?

Dissonance is enjoying football while watching a game with Carlton in it.....lol
which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states

 

[DoubleO7]

Dissonance is enjoying football while watching a game with Carlton in it.....lol
which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states

I should have edited my post, I meant say Hypocrisy.

 

[Old Spice]

His biggest problem is basic skills like kicking etc. In 10 years of coaching, this area hasnt improved which is a concern as other teams have managed it. Modern football is all about good skills.

True, good skills are gold dust, but I don't know that our team has appalling kicking skills outside of maybe Johnson. Whatsmore, the team is constantly changing and new work always needs done.

I'll chance my arm here and do some kicking grading. I'd put this on a new thread but have ben yellow-carded for a counterpunch on the Crows board about ferrelness with a jibe about Adelaide hair-cuts, amongst other things.

Excellent

Davis
Anthony
Thomas
Clarke
Fraser
Lockyer
Didak
Medhurst
Pendlebury
McCarthy

Good

Swan
Brown
Shaw
O'Brien
Dawes
Goldsack
Wellingham
Rocca
Cox

Acceptable

O'Bree
Cloke
L Brown
Wood
Presti
Reid
Toovey

Sh1t

Johnson
Bryan
Corrie

The rest I haven't seen enough of. But I reckon all up we aren't so bad, but obviously a sharpening of this capacity is important.

 

[mdc]

I'd have it as follows (field kicking only):

top tier:
Davis
Pendlebury
HFF Didak
Clarke
Lockyer

second tier:
Cox
Midfield Didak
Rocca
O'Brien

third tier
Fraser
Thomas
Shaw

third-and-a-half tier:
Medhurst
Maxwell
Swan

fourth tier:
O'Bree
Brown
Goldsack
Wood

fifth tier:
Johnson
Toovey
Bryan

cloke tier:
Cloke

 

[tess]

I think we need this game plan but not as most would think.

I think we need it as a "baseline" and a fall back if all else fails.

That said we need to be developing a more direct attacking "offensive" game plan as a first weapon of choice.

1. Direct corridor footy.
2. Man on Man
3. Our standard wide game.

That would give the side far more flexibility in tight situations.

Exactly, this should be a basic game plan not THE game plan.

 

[shawthing09]

I'd have it as follows (field kicking only):

fifth tier:
Johnson

cloke tier:
Cloke

I think this is one of my major issues. In that we have so much delivery into the foward 50 from our worst user of the ball and another who is not far away. Cloke's current role as the whole CHF / wing means a large amount of his possesions result in inside 50's (especially when you throw in his love for the long hail mary and hope)

Effectively it takes our most likely foward target and worst user of the ball into the 50 and takes him away from the 50 and gets him kicking it in. It baffles me. Our fowardline looks infinately worse when he is outside the and kicking the ball in and yet we have him in a role which is designed for him to do exactly that. Sometimes less is more and Cloke's case is one of them IMO. Without seeing the stats I'd say over the past couple of years he'd be top 3 for our side for inside 50's and in the bottom in terms of inside 50 to goal assit ratios. Surely we have to get him into a role where most of his possesions result in a direct shot for goal.