Hypothetical direction?

[shawthing09]

I am going to get accused of being part of the sky is falling brigade but here we go.

My question is have we over estimated our list due to the "we can beat anyone on our day" mentality. Is our ability to beat teams more based around our ability to turn it into a scrap and play at fever pitch. When this intensity is matched by our opposition is that when the wheels fall off. Is this why we lost to Essendon, Carlton twice, North twice and got thumped by Hawthorn. When intensity is equal is our massive holes i.e inexperinced defence and poor midfield are really exposed.

Is it time to address the real holes and question marks in our side going foward. I am not talking about wholesale changes, I am however talking about making some big decisions.

Examples only one of O'Bree and Burns playing allowing players like Stanley and Cook to get ago in the midfield where they have earnt a spot and seeing whether they are up to the grade.

Shopping around players like Fraser, Cox, Davis, Maxwell, Johnson

They are all players I like and good players but Fraser has real value his body may stop him being part of a Collingwood side that has a real tilt and it may be worth it if the price is right

Davis is still a crumber/ small foward and whilst he is playing a role in the midfield we simply have too many of his type who offer more versatlity or promise going foward.

Maxwell again is probably the worst one on one defensive backmen we have.

Bj simply his decision making etc hurts us more when he plays in defence where i thought he may have value for us if he stayed on the list. Could be a chance for cook to cut his teeth in the ones in that role.

Also if we are doing this is it time for a new coach to be given a shot???

I honestly don't think losing the players I have mentioned above will hurt us majorly short term and should help us long term. Fraser could be one who hurts us if we choose to off load him. That said he has missed major chunks of the past two years anyway.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

My question is have we over estimated our list due to the "we can beat anyone on our day" mentality. Is our ability to beat teams more based around our ability to turn it into a scrap and play at fever pitch. When this intensity is matched by our opposition is that when the wheels fall off. Is this why we lost to Essendon, Carlton twice, North twice and got thumped by Hawthorn. When intensity is equal is our massive holes i.e inexperinced defence and poor midfield are really exposed.

I sort of agree with that. I think the fanatical intensity we can muster at times does paper over some of the cracks in our list. Our intensity against North was down IMO, as it was against Essendon on Saturday and against Hawthorn -- that was a key factor (but not the only factor) in those losses. But I think there are also some structural problems that these teams have exploited too. Carlton's pace through the middle worries the hell out of us IMO -- the second time we played them I thought out intensity was fine, they just exploited our weak links. And we simply don't have matchups for North's small forwards, a key factor in both losses to them, as was the absence of a tagger to play on the likes of Harvey.

Examples only one of O'Bree and Burns playing allowing players like Stanley and Cook to get ago in the midfield where they have earnt a spot and seeing whether they are up to the grade.

The problem, as I see it, is that our midfield depth isn't great in the VFL. I'm all for giving Stanley a go, and seeing if he can do some damage at stoppages, but the current midfield stocks in the VFL don't fill me with much optimism. McCarthy will be a player. But it'd be premature to throw him in at the moment, IMO (though I wouldn't complain if they did). The simple fact is a flawed player like O'Bree keeps getting games, because there's not enough pressure from underneath.

Shopping around players like Fraser, Cox, Davis, Maxwell, Johnson

With the possible exception of Fraser, I don't think we'll get much for these players, particularly in the last uncompromised draft in years. Clubs will be very reluctant to part with draft picks IMO. Cox, Maxwell, and Johnson are worth **** all. Davis would get some interest but a small forward/second-string mid in his late twenties isn't gonna net us a first-rounder IMV. If we trade Fraser, we've yet again got a threadbare ruck division, with only Wood, Bryan, and a kid who's barely played football (Keeffe). We'd have to get a lot for Fraser to make that worthwhile.

Also if we are doing this is it time for a new coach to be given a shot???

I'm a bit agnostic on MM. I'd retain MM and let him serve out his contract, which I think runs till 2009, then assess where we're at and who's available.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Happy with our progress forward. Cloke looks a champion, Medhurst has added an extra dimension, Didak is AA standard, and hopefully we'll get one or two of Anthony Dawes Rusling and Reid to make the grade. Thomas can do special things and Davis still has a bit to offer.

Happy with our defence. Brown and O'Brien are well established now, Maxwell keeps doing the job despite limited ability, and Heath Shaw is obviously a quality palyer despite his form slump. Anthony can be swung back. Clarke seems to know what he's doing back there too.

Reasonably happy with the potential of Wood as a long term ruck option. We need to bring more through though. Fraser's been there for a long time for not much result while Bryan's abilities are limited.

The main area of concern is midfield. Apart from Pendlebury Swan and Thomas, we have very little potential. We certainly need to find some more players there. Wellingham and Clarke may be answers as may McArthy and Barham, but we need to find more. First port of call is to give every opportunity to Iles Toovey Stanley and Cook. Then we need to target some at trade time. Kerr should be at the top of the shopping list but we should also look widely at others who may be looking to leave their clubs or return home to Victoria. A player like Chris Knights would be handy. Or Prismall.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I sort of agree with that. I think the fanatical intensity we can muster at times does paper over some of the cracks in our list. Our intensity against North was down IMO, as it was against Essendon on Saturday and against Hawthorn -- that was a key factor (but not the only factor) in those losses. But I think there are also some structural problems that these teams have exploited too. Carlton's pace through the middle worries the hell out of us IMO -- the second time we played them I thought out intensity was fine, they just exploited our weak links. And we simply don't have matchups for North's small forwards, a key factor in both losses to them, as was the absence of a tagger to play on the likes of Harvey.

Reading it back, I realise that was a bit of a garbled response to the question you posed, Shawthing.

There's no doubt that intensity will cover a multitude of structural weaknesses. Last year, feverish intensity and rotations during the finals covered for our class and pace deficit through the middle IMO. But I agree that when our intensity is matched, whether it's a case of sides getting up to play us or us dropping off a little, we can be exposed.

I was hopeful that more midfield time to Davis, Didak, and Thomas and the continued improvement from Pendlebury and Clarke might addresss our midfield deficits, but it hasn't turned out that way. We still need a couple more blue-chip midfield talents.

 

[Kirby]

There is no way that both O'Brie and Burns should be on the ground at the same time as they just don't cover the ground like they used to. We need more run in the middle.

I know our midfield pace gets brought up but Essendon dont have midfield pace either and they sliced us up because they ran harder and got to contests. Watson is slow and got 41, Welsh is average paced at best and got plenty of it and 4 goals and Stanton only has average pace too. The difference is that they were prepared to run harder to get to contests.

Jesus we were lazy last Saturday. How many times did we switch play only to have no players moving to the empty wing to create an option? That is just slack and lazy.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

There is no way that both O'Brie and Burns should be on the ground at the same time as they just don't cover the ground like they used to. We need more run in the middle.

I know our midfield pace gets brought up but Essendon dont have midfield pace either and they sliced us up because they ran harder and got to contests. Watson is slow and got 41, Welsh is average paced at best and got plenty of it and 4 goals and Stanton only has average pace too. The difference is that they were prepared to run harder to get to contests.

Jesus we were lazy last Saturday. How many times did we switch play only to have no players moving to the empty wing to create an option? That is just slack and lazy.

Agreed. We just got outworked by a more desperate side on Saturday.

We are slow through the middle, however. One of the reasons why we should play Thomas through the middle more and keep playing Wellingham IMO (struggle to make sense of people wanting to drop Sharrod).

 

[shawthing09]

Agreed. We just got outworked by a more desperate side on Saturday.

We are slow through the middle, however. One of the reasons why we should play Thomas through the middle more and keep playing Wellingham IMO (struggle to make sense of people wanting to drop Sharrod).

Agreed, I think those two need to be given as much exposure in the midfield as possible. Athletically and mentally they have what it takes to be stand out midfielders, the likes of which we are pretty short. I.E all round players, quick good skills, hard at it, line breaking etc. They both need to continue to develop their understanding in the middle which can only be done by playing there.

I don't really like seeing Davis in the middle for that reason, his ok but doesnt have the same upside as these two which is another reason i would be all for trading him. Even if it was for an early second rounder which is used to take a prospect KPP (back especially) or ruck or mid. We have too many flankers who are part time B grade mids.

 

[Kirby]

Agreed. We just got outworked by a more desperate side on Saturday.

We are slow through the middle, however. One of the reasons why we should play Thomas through the middle more and keep playing Wellingham IMO (struggle to make sense of people wanting to drop Sharrod).

I'm totally with you. Don't worry.

As you probably are aware, I'm also keen to have Stanners get some midfield time too. He doesn't have great pace but he will cover the ground better than both O'Bree and Burns due to his "less weary bones". However, all three of them could not be in the middle together so MM has to get the mix right. We really ought to be fazing out our reliance on O'Brie and Burns to extract all our ball because once the ball is in play and away from the stoppages they are not really offering us much.

Whilst on the topic of pace, I really question the ongoing place of Tarks in our side. He's a great little tryer but he gets carved up by the pacy smalls, is not really good or fast enough to play on the mids and is only serviceable as a small forward.

 

[shawthing09]

I'm totally with you. Don't worry.

As you probably are aware, I'm also keen to have Stanners get some midfield time too. He doesn't have great pace but he will cover the ground better than both O'Bree and Burns due to his "less weary bones". However, all three of them could not be in the middle together so MM has to get the mix right. We really ought to be fazing out our reliance on O'Brie and Burns to extract all our ball because once the ball is in play and away from the stoppages they are not really offering us much.

Whilst on the topic of pace, I really question the ongoing place of Tarks in our side. He's a great little tryer but he gets carved up by the pacy smalls, is not really good or fast enough to play on the mids and is only serviceable as a small forward.

Agree with that, if i thought he had any trade value I would have him up there too in one to be shopped around, I really doubt anyone else would want him though.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yep, the rhetoric about being able to beat any team on our day is infuriating. It simply ignores the fact that you have to earn the "day". They don't hand out free passes into the GF to meet Geelong, just because we managed to beat them on one occasion.

To win a flag we probably have to make top four. That means we must become a team capable of consistently beating the rabbles of Carlton and Essendon, outclassing the likes of the Kangaroos and Bulldogs, and putting ourselves far enough in front of the Lions that the umpires can't hand them the game in the last quarter. We are a long way from being that team.

 

[Pie eyed]

In th OP you argue that when the other side matches our intensity we fall down.
Specifically in regard to the Essendon game, if they matched our intensity in that game we, the spectators, would have fallen down, asleep.
When the Pies go out and play with "intensity" we do sometimes lose to teams who by definition have matched our intensity, if not bettered it.

When we go out with absolutely zero intensity, put on a bit of an effort for 20 odd minutes and then go back into our shell we always lose to any team which shows up.

We have struggled to keep up our intensity week in and week out last year and this year. When we are on we are a true force, when we are off we are just making up the numbers. I think personally, given that we have blooded so many young players over the last three years that the sporadic nature of our performances is really to be expected.
Only the fact that the boys out performed even their own expectations last season has given rise to an over optimism and overly high expectations this season. Had we finished 8th last year and lost in the first round we still would have had made advances. We still have a glimmer of hope this year of featuring in the finals but those who think it is time we should demand a flag and anything less is failure are very wrong.
A flag, if we did win it would be fantastic, but very much out of the hat.
We are a few years behind Hawthorn and Western Bulldogs in terms of consistency and light years behind Geelong. This is not to say that we or any other side in the finals cannot knock any other off and win the Flag.
If we do great...
I would think Mick is trying to build a team which can truly make a legitimate tilt for a sustained period...this will take a little longer.
Personally, if I was the coach, the current almostness (like that word?) of our side would actually be a distraction from the long term goal.


I maybe just a loon, but great sides don't just fall out the sky. They are not just picked in a couple of years at the draft. They are built with hard work, players spending lots of game time together, learning each others strengths and weakness's, developing tactics and strategies, alternate game plans for each opposition side, adapting to different grounds, conditions and circumstances. Building skills, bodies, fitness and self belief.

And then after all this they are still not assured of a flag because like Geelong this year, they may well succumb at the last hurdle to another team which has spent the time to become.

 

[Damon_3388]

I won't go into too much depth, but the Pies need to stay switched on all game, regardless of the ladder position of their opponent. The effort against Essendon last Saturday was insipid, and left me feeling disgusted that they could just run all over us in the last quarter. I know they've had some good form as a side recently, but they're not a better team overall IMO. The Pies just need to go for the kill no matter who the opposition, and not expect to just waltz in against the Carltons and the Essendons of the league, who aren't the best sides, but have enough quality (and form) these days to put one over the better clubs if allowed to do so. A number of the Pies' losses this year were avoidable IMO. Brisbane, North (twice), and the Bulldogs a couple of weeks ago all looked very winable at points during the game, yet lapses at crucial stages allowed the other side to get on top.

As well as that, I know this will sound as though I can't be satisfied, but even some of the Pies' wins have been less-than-convincing. After beating Geelong and West Coast by big margins, I genuinely expected the Pies to comprehensively dismantle Melbourne to the tune of a 100 point+ margin. Yet the Pies appeared to rest on their laurels, and scrape by with a 20-odd point win, a game which the Demons probably deserved to win by how they played.

Again, I think there just needs to be a solid four quarter effort from everyone, to make sure the games that should be won are (ie. those against sides below us). The Pies can't just rely on being able to 'turn it on' for a 10-15 minute period to get by and get the win (especially if the other team is matching them in intensity), as they're simply not good enough lately to be able to do that.

 

[shawthing09]

Maybe the essendon examle was a poor one. What i am saying is as supporters and even as a team we over estimate our playing list. We assume that the extremely good results are where we are really at and the poor results are lapses. The fact is a fully fit collingwood and full intensity is 6 goals between a fully fit and intense Hawthorn. The reason we match up so well against geelong is because they play such a high possesion game and we stop them playing. In a similar way too the 02/03 final series against Port.

 

[Bloben]

Maybe the essendon examle was a poor one. What i am saying is as supporters and even as a team we over estimate our playing list. We assume that the extremely good results are where we are really at and the poor results are lapses. The fact is a fully fit collingwood and full intensity is 6 goals between a fully fit and intense Hawthorn. The reason we match up so well against geelong is because they play such a high possesion game and we stop them playing. In a similar way too the 02/03 final series against Port.

Not sure whether that is a fact or merely an opinion. I don't want to seem to be wearing rose tinted glasses but after all the negativity on our recent performances I am going to put it out there.

I agree that Hawthorn at full force and free flowing with Mitchell and Hodge carving up the midfield and Roughead and Buddy booting them from everywhere is better than Collingwood's free flowing type play. My point though is that when we are at our full force we negate any free flowing football.

IMO we are the best in the league when we are "on" at playing disciplined pressure football and that there is no way even a side like Hawthorn would be able to play freely through the midfield. Recently sides such as North Melbourne played this pressure football against us and won however that was because we are a mere shadow of what we are capable of and our flat style was easily overwhelmed.

If the Collingwood that beat Geelong (albeit an out of form one) by 86 points comes out to play Hawthorn on Friday. Even if Hawthorn come to play too, I think that we are as much a chance of winning as they are and that they would not be 6 goals better than us.

 

[Soul_Pie]

I think the pressure game that we play is both our greatest asset and our greatest weakness.

Watching some highlights of the Geelong game, our agression and just not giving the opposing team an inch was just incredible. We were so turned on, our pressure and attack on the ball carrier was bordering on manic. I've never seen such an effort where we've harrassed a team and just starved them of any kind of run and carry. When we are in this state of mind we could be almost unstoppable. We just forced turnover after turnover and we capitalised on it.

The problem is, though, that it seems to be nigh on impossible to be that switched on every week over the course of 22 rounds, and I think many players struggle to find that same kind of intensity when playing "lesser" opponents. We especially struggle when teams just come out and play like they have nothing to lose, because then they expose the fact that we actually are very reliant on turnovers and stuff-ups in high stakes games. I think Bucks has mentioned this a few times before. Remember Sydney's last quarter against us, where they closed the gap right up because they basically went all out?

I think a part of our problem is that we don't really have a "Plan B", ie an attacking game where we actually take on the match ourselves, or at least if we do have one we rarely use it. We simply work our ways up the wings, and if the other team happens to turn it over then we'll run through the centre. That's why I believe we struggle to put away teams at times, because if the other team plays like they've got nothing to lose and our intensity is down slightly then we get ran all over.

 

[Kirby]

Great post Soul Pie.