Review Pies win a thriller (Blues 87-106 Pies)

Scodog10

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Posts
17,267
Likes
24,443
Location
The Linc
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Oakland Raiders
I can't predict the future of of Brown or the state of the game, but in the interests of both I hope that the bolded is incorrect. I hope that the game continues to need a variety of playing types, including the smaller but strong little blokes with a manic need to work through congestion and the awareness and skill to do it. The game moved on from Blair, no doubt, but I feel confident that Brown is already a better player and that he'll continue to improve his game.

Carlton's lack of experience cost them composure, and it cost them dearly. We did well to turn the screws, but a more self-assured team --which is what Carlton look to be becoming-- wouldn't be letting that game slip away.
Therein lies the question of what Brown can become. For me guys that are in your best 22 to add pressure yet can’t impact the contest in two of the three phases of the game are done. Blair throughout his time was very limited offensively ball in hand and too easy to dismiss when tackling an opponent. In the contest though I always felt like he fought beyond his weight division. Brown currently offers value in one phase of the game because he’s a very decent conduit ball in hand because of his trigger hands and neat kick (for instance in open space I’d prefer he had the ball to Adams or Treloar) and he gets to the right spots as an outlet. The query that remains in my eyes is whether he can take his defensive game and ball winning to the next level. Right now he’s bullied when he gets midfield time. If he can tick the box with at least two of the three he’ll make it with us and if he ticks all three he’ll reach heights that previously looked beyond him. I feel that his body shape will go a long way to dictating that!

I’m not sure I agree with a lack of experience costing them. Four of the errors were from guys that have been in the system long enough to be able to execute. I’d agree that a team with more self assurance wouldn’t have let it slip, but I think the cause was more deeply routed in those individuals, Cripps aside, being guys you don’t want involved in the big moments. Only my take on it though because it’s a very subjective one.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jackcass

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
16,128
Likes
13,649
Location
Bendigo
AFL Club
Collingwood
We played to much of that old **** Gameplan Bucks use to love it a lot of Backwards and Sideways Kicks
I'm pretty sure Bucks wouldn't have instructed the players to play like that. It's caused by congestion ahead of the footy. Carlton worked really hard to ensure we didn't have any freedom. We didn't work hard enough to cut through it, and when we did we wasted too many opportunities.
 

76woodenspooners

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Posts
15,482
Likes
21,953
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Problem with the rule is the players downfield don't know where the mark is, so they can't get in Crisps way until the umpire steps out 50 or calls him as having played on. The rule wasn't thought out properly.
I don’t get why they needed to change the rule in the first place?

And if a player tries to milk an extension and zig zag to pull an opponent into the protected zone, shouldn’t they be deemed to run off their line and play on?
 

nahnah

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Posts
18,166
Likes
23,727
AFL Club
Collingwood
I don’t get why they needed to change the rule in the first place?

And if a player tries to milk an extension and zig zag to pull an opponent into the protected zone, shouldn’t they be deemed to run off their line and play on?
To speed up the game and make it more entertaining as apparently that is what the fans want! Nice one Hocking :)
 

Scodog10

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Posts
17,267
Likes
24,443
Location
The Linc
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Oakland Raiders
By we are already there, i meant Collingwood not the competition ss a whole. I think we are already trying to significantly adjust our ball movement depending on the defensive look thrown at us.
That would concern me because significant changes to ball movement in season are a recipe for disaster. I’d also hazard a guess that the data wouldn’t support that view, but without access too it I can only say by eye that I’m not as convinced. I do see the benefits of at least having different looks up your sleeve I just wouldn’t be using it as a basis to rise up the ladder as Carlton are attempting to do. I mean they’ve looked a different team in each of their past 4 outings and it’s hurting them, IMO.
 

jackcass

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
16,128
Likes
13,649
Location
Bendigo
AFL Club
Collingwood
Problem with the rule is the players downfield don't know where the mark is, so they can't get in Crisps way until the umpire steps out 50 or calls him as having played on. The rule wasn't thought out properly.
You don't need to know the exact point where the mark will be for a player (midfielder or forward who is well wide of the infringement) to move to a general area 50m downfield rather than everyone just charging back into defence as in the Crisp 50m. The bloke who initially infringes just needs to get out of the way of the player he infringed against but can still run back into the defence as long as he runs at a tangent.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
You don't need to know the exact point where the mark will be for a player (midfielder or forward who is well wide of the infringement) to move to a general area 50m downfield rather than everyone just charging back into defence as in the Crisp 50m. The bloke who initially infringes just needs to get out of the way of the player he infringed against but can still run back into the defence as long as he runs at a tangent.
You're probably right and it'll probably settle down soon. But it's a bloody farce and a shambles at the moment. Needed to be properly trialled before being introduced. And frankly, 50 metres was enough of a penalty anyway. The thing that really annoys me is that it's the tiggy touchwood 50s that benefit from the rule change. The proper one's that we all want paid, where the bloke gets buried after a mark, he gets up slowly and there is no benefit from the rule change.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
14,254
Likes
16,423
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not having Cox makes a bigger impact than many would like to admit. His contested marking and contests for long kicks are really important for the team. Reid just cant contest like him, especially in a big pack he rarely gets near the ball.

More than a handy ruckmen too when Grundy is resting
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not having Cox makes a bigger impact than many would like to admit. His contested marking and contests for long kicks are really important for the team. Reid just cant contest like him, especially in a big pack he rarely gets near the ball.

More than a handy ruckmen too when Grundy is resting
Reid was okay in the pack situation. The big issue against the Blues was that Casboult was too strong for him in one on ones and just pushed him around. I'm pretty confident that Casboult would have done the same, but even more effectively against Cox, who would have just crumpled and he and we would have been complaining about frees that just weren't there. I'm a Cox fan, but big strong blokes like Casboult are his nemesis.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Posts
11,469
Likes
18,331
Location
MCG
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #486
Reid was okay in the pack situation. The big issue against the Blues was that Casboult was too strong for him in one on ones and just pushed him around. I'm pretty confident that Casboult would have done the same, but even more effectively against Cox, who would have just crumpled and he and we would have been complaining about frees that just weren't there. I'm a Cox fan, but big strong blokes like Casboult are his nemesis.
Casboult played a great game.
May have struggled with Cox as he has an ability to leap at the ball, something Reidy no longer has.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jackcass

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
16,128
Likes
13,649
Location
Bendigo
AFL Club
Collingwood
You're probably right and it'll probably settle down soon. But it's a bloody farce and a shambles at the moment. Needed to be properly trialled before being introduced. And frankly, 50 metres was enough of a penalty anyway. The thing that really annoys me is that it's the tiggy touchwood 50s that benefit from the rule change. The proper one's that we all want paid, where the bloke gets buried after a mark, he gets up slowly and there is no benefit from the rule change.
Yeah, it's less than perfect, particularly those instances where the initial 50m comes from someone inadvertently encroaching into the protected zone because they're generally such arbitrary decisions.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Casboult played a great game.
May have struggled with Cox as he has an ability to leap at the ball, something Reidy no longer has.
True. I do also think Reid still has a defenders instinct and gets to the ball drop too soon and thus makes himself easy fodder for a big strong defender.
 

jackcass

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
16,128
Likes
13,649
Location
Bendigo
AFL Club
Collingwood
Reid was okay in the pack situation. The big issue against the Blues was that Casboult was too strong for him in one on ones and just pushed him around. I'm pretty confident that Casboult would have done the same, but even more effectively against Cox, who would have just crumpled and he and we would have been complaining about frees that just weren't there. I'm a Cox fan, but big strong blokes like Casboult are his nemesis.
Cox is always susceptible to being muscled out of those marking contests but he also has a habit of still getting a hand up to spoil the marking contest and bringing the ball to ground. Doubt it would have mattered against the blues as they generally had an outnumber at the fall of the footy.
 

JB1975

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Posts
4,206
Likes
9,946
Location
Elsewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
Therein lies the question of what Brown can become. For me guys that are in your best 22 to add pressure yet can’t impact the contest in two of the three phases of the game are done. Blair throughout his time was very limited offensively ball in hand and too easy to dismiss when tackling an opponent. In the contest though I always felt like he fought beyond his weight division. Brown currently offers value in one phase of the game because he’s a very decent conduit ball in hand because of his trigger hands and neat kick (for instance in open space I’d prefer he had the ball to Adams or Treloar) and he gets to the right spots as an outlet. The query that remains in my eyes is whether he can take his defensive game and ball winning to the next level. Right now he’s bullied when he gets midfield time. If he can tick the box with at least two of the three he’ll make it with us and if he ticks all three he’ll reach heights that previously looked beyond him. I feel that his body shape will go a long way to dictating that!

I’m not sure I agree with a lack of experience costing them. Four of the errors were from guys that have been in the system long enough to be able to execute. I’d agree that a team with more self assurance wouldn’t have let it slip, but I think the cause was more deeply routed in those individuals, Cripps aside, being guys you don’t want involved in the big moments. Only my take on it though because it’s a very subjective one.
It can be quite subjective. I haven't seen the replay, but my thoughts from the ground were that Carlton stopped positioning themselves around the contests in the (very) effective way they'd done for most of the game. Too many of them got sucked into the contest in the heat of the moment, depriving them the outlet/s on the outside. Some on-field leadership beyond Cripps would have, I think, helped their cause immensely.

But you're right, they certainly made some unforgivable mistakes in the last 5-10.
 
Last edited:

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah, it's less than perfect, particularly those instances where the initial 50m comes from someone inadvertently encroaching into the protected zone because they're generally such arbitrary decisions.
Yep. The ones that don't actually slow down the game get the full benefit of the rule change. The ones that do slow down the game don't get a benefit.
 

loki04

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Posts
21,443
Likes
16,133
Location
BHill
AFL Club
Collingwood
Problem with the rule is the players downfield don't know where the mark is, so they can't get in Crisps way until the umpire steps out 50 or calls him as having played on. The rule wasn't thought out properly.
They are allowed to run infront of him so long as they started there, if you hand over to another player they can jog back with the ump and no extra 50.

Phillips was dumb.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
They are allowed to run infront of him so long as they started there, if you hand over to another player they can jog back with the ump and no extra 50.

Phillips was dumb.
Are you sure about that? I haven't seen anyone who has started in front of the player get across into the sprinting bloke's line and jog with him, but I've seen a heap of players clear the line for him. No doubt Phillips was dumb.
 

Saintly Viewed

Richard Condon
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Posts
43,681
Likes
34,567
AFL Club
Collingwood
Wouldn’t it be lovely to have a sliding doors moment, go back to the 2013 draft and pick Cripps or a plethora of other 2013 guns instead of the 2 we got. Cripps in our GF side last year and we win
That’s true in a way.
Cripps for Freeman no brainer.
Ofcourse had we got Cripps with our stacked mid brigade he’d be getting a bit lower numbers and sharing it around; but on his talent we’d be flying no doubt a couple of goals to the good.

That’s why getting Beams is a good thing, the more A grade talent you bring in, the closer you get to winning the lot.

We should never worry about bringing better talent, others just have to work harder to get in.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
14,254
Likes
16,423
AFL Club
Collingwood
Reid was okay in the pack situation. The big issue against the Blues was that Casboult was too strong for him in one on ones and just pushed him around. I'm pretty confident that Casboult would have done the same, but even more effectively against Cox, who would have just crumpled and he and we would have been complaining about frees that just weren't there. I'm a Cox fan, but big strong blokes like Casboult are his nemesis.
Cox can run and jump at the ball far better than reid.
 

Saintly Viewed

Richard Condon
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Posts
43,681
Likes
34,567
AFL Club
Collingwood
While more than a few seem incapable of it, I'm happy to acknowledge how well they played.
Jack, you’re right, they played well and their best player for 3 quarters gave them much needed drive.

Yes, we made errors (all teams do) but they played well. I’d venture their best all round game in a good while.

However, what we did really well was NEVER let them get off the chain, we kept the scoreboard ticking along. We allied pressure. Kept them under heat.

We finally broke them.

But as a good side, we delivered the business when it counted.

But that will do with my acknowledgment for them, can’t stand Carlton so there is glee in their defeat.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Cox can run and jump at the ball far better than reid.
No argument here. I'd be picking him comfortable above Reid for that and other reasons. I just think if we're hoping that he'd do better than Reid in those one on ones against Casboult, it's false hope.
 

Black_White

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
10,923
Likes
8,069
AFL Club
Collingwood
Problem with the rule is the players downfield don't know where the mark is, so they can't get in Crisps way until the umpire steps out 50 or calls him as having played on. The rule wasn't thought out properly.
You misunderstand the intent of the rule change.
It is intended that the player with the free has the opportunity to play on if the mark is not stood.
I see there was a comment that Philips “even ran around him to get in front and stand the mark.”
That is exactly what the rule was intended to stop. Once the player with the free gets in front of you then you must treat him as being in a protected zone and you must vacate that zone.
I don’t have an issue with it. Just wish they would apply something similar to players who stand over, or push the player away from, the ball on the ground when the player with the free tries to pick it up.
Ant attempt to interfere with the ball pick up should be treated the same as failure to return the ball on the full.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,957
Likes
14,077
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
You misunderstand the intent of the rule change.
It is intended that the player with the free has the opportunity to play on if the mark is not stood.
I see there was a comment that Philips “even ran around him to get in front and stand the mark.”
That is exactly what the rule was intended to stop. Once the player with the free gets in front of you then you must treat him as being in a protected zone and you must vacate that zone.
I don’t have an issue with it. Just wish they would apply something similar to players who stand over, or push the player away from, the ball on the ground when the player with the free tries to pick it up.
Ant attempt to interfere with the ball pick up should be treated the same as failure to return the ball on the full.
I think the intent is for the player to not be slowed down in gaining his 50 metres and to be able to play on at any stage, but they've forgotten that noone knows where the new mark is until the umpire has paced it out. So ultimately if he gets ahead of the umpire, he can probably run about 60 metres before the umpire is confident he's gone too far and calls play on and only then can blokes try to get in his path, so he can probably run another 10 metres before he is challenged - a total of about 70 metres. It's a farce.

Edit. And he's no longer kicking over the man on the mark, so add another 5 metres. And when do you get this advantage, not on the proper time wasting or burying your opponent 50s, because in those situations the umpire gets back quicker than the bloke sprinting with the ball, you get the advantage on the rubbish no effect on the game, technical 50s. It's a joke of a rule.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom