Analysis Progress is Never Linear

[Countrypie]

Aha, I think this is where we may have broken down and is what I've tried to allude to - not so easy to put into words.

Scodog10 what sr36 has rightly pointed out (or at least I think) is that we've become unpredictable to each other, certainly before last weeks game in any case.

There have been some on here who have id'd an issue of being predictable to the opposition. We have become unpredictable to the opp and ourselves and that is largely the issue.

If you look at successful teams they have a brand that IS predictable more so to themselves than any opp. So being unpredictable to the opp will reap zero advantage if you're not on the same page within your own team, if anything it is a disadvantage.

As I've stated earlier there has been a deliberate attempt to control the ball by the club. Pendles admitted as such after the dogs game, being not the most talented list in the ways of transition efficiency this works against us. The way we played last year was difficult to defeat not because of list talent but because we grunt win the ball and structured up on the premise we win the contest - how the opp has "found us out" is not in the contest so much but they've identified the need to nullify the transition.

Now because we've gone down the path of trying to control possession it's made it even easier for the opp pressure us to turnover. Partly due to the "over correction" that Pendles stated. If you look at the North game, on the ball win our receivers or outside links were spread too far and wide and that invited pressure.

So on face value the question is "why were we able to cover injuries last year and not this year"? Because last year the style was not talent reliant i:e it required effort, two running and set up (and everyone on the park to understand it). This year controlling transition requires better DE and because we've had to replace the injured the soldiers coming in aren't so adept to controlling the transition. I:e we're not a silky wc ball movement team particularly when we spread the links too far and wide and pressure ensues then turnover results.

I'm more than certain this is not the intent of the coaching panel, as stated earlier it's likely an over correction of an intended tweak i:e still win the ball which we're doing it's the set after the fact that seems to be the problem. Seems we've tried to slow down the transition to avoid turnover the other way while still trying to suffocate the opp in the contest. Hazard a guess this is what Bucks meant by "we're not far off"

I think you've probably nailed what I was trying to say in the first place. We've over corrected but the intention was never to revert to a failed game style - the over correction will right itself in due course. I also believe that perhaps the over correction is largely coming from those on the list that are not in our top tier - they're the ones feeling the pinch.
On a separate but not necessarily unrelated matter our centre clearance work has gone backwards this year - so much so that I remember thinking that if you didn't know better and were new to the game you'd be excused for thinking that it was a rule that our Ruckmen had to hit it to Dusty. Again, I think a lot of oppo work has been done on our centre clearance work and we're struggling to compensate - maybe we'll see some improvement with Adams in there. I hope so.

 

[sr36]

I still give us an outside chance of clicking.

 

[Carringbush2010]

They are predictable. They are very confident. They are also very susceptible to getting blown away again by a team that exposes that preparedness to run ahead of the ball anticipating wins on the inside. The Melbourne media are in love with them. I suspect West Coast will destroy them. Why? Because they're harder inside,have speed on the outside, are supremely talented have a forward line that presents multiple dangers and a defence that is rock solid. Players like Bolton, Broad & Caddy will struggle to get a kick when the heat is on.

Yes they are predictable, more so to themselves than the opp though. Although it is high risk / reward it is also very reliable. WC aren't necessarily going to out contest / stoppage Richmond - wc are a more skill based transition team than the tigs. Wc beat us in the gf last because they were able to out contest / stoppage . This is foreign game style for them.

If they didn't we'd be premiers.

So how does all this apply to us? We are "same same but different" to the tigs (I'm talkin last year) - the pressure game at the contest was almost identical the transition was different.

• Collingwood set up on the premise we win the contest, this allows smoother ball transition. The trade off is that if you lose the contest you're exposed the other way. However we set up defensively well enough to somewhat nullify that contest loss - not ideal but an insurance policy if you will (didn't always work though)
• Richmond suffocate like we do but as you say chaos it forward. They rely on outnumbering where ever the ball is, very very difficult to defeat (which makes it reliable) even as predictable as it is and as you say is risky - more so than the 2018 Collingwood model.

 

[Kappa]

I've been moved to write this post by the constant sky is falling narrative from some posters compared to the Pollyanna everything is roses commentary from others.
I like to think of myself as a realist and honestly believe that where the club sits right now s a proper reflection of its performance this year over the whole season thus far and meets my preseason expectations.

I never expected last year to repeat. The club took the competition by surprise and caught several opponents off guard. We rode a wave of momentum that almost carried us to a surprise but well deserved premiership. It didn't happen and the opportunity was missed. I likened last year to 2007 when Collingwood went within a kick of upsetting Geelong and 2008 when Hawthorn won a flag before its time. All the elements weren't quite in place, but circumstances and luck combined and in our case conspired to create unlikely outcomes.

With the element of surprise gone, it was only natural that more time was put into planning for and negating the team's strengths - which were unusual and unorthodox.

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses. This was to be expected and that's why I surprised some of my non Collingwood supporting mates before the season when I said that I expected Collingwood to finish in the bottom half of the 8.

Even when we started the season well, we were struggling to cope with the attempts to stifle our game style. The wheels haven't quite fallen off but they've been wobbling since the bye and Stephenson's suspension. No one could have predicted that - but the writing was on the wall as early as the Carlton game. Some of our 2nd and 3rd tier players are struggling with the increased focus on our game style and the burden has fallen on to the usual suspects to scrap for every win. there's nothing unusual about this. It's a little like the plateau concept that guitar players deal with - they reach a certain level and all of a sudden can't seem to get any better regardless of how much work that they put in. Then after months of getting nowhere, everything clicks and they have another burst of creative energy as they progress through another level. The key is that you've just got to work through the plateaus and wait for the next burst of improvement.

It will come for Collingwood. It may not be this year, it may not be most of next but it will come. We are much closer than many people think but much further away than some expect we should be. Improvement is never linear. It comes and goes in spurts. We need to see improvement from our players ranked from 8- 26 on the list - and that improvement is not necessarily in things such as skill and effort but more in game awareness, resilience and decision making. You only get that improvement by being subjected to intense heat, failing and then rebuilding. A not so great sage once quoted a great sage by saying the earth is slow but the ox is patient.

Enjoy the ride. We are close. It may not be this year, but if the stars align it may be (they did for the Bulldogs a couple of years ago) but I sincerely believe our best years are ahead of us.

Go pies

Why are our best years ahead of us when our under 23 group of players is noticeably weaker than most other teams? We've traded out a bunch of 1st rounders and some early 2nd rounders for experienced players, it comes at a cost and our youth outside of Stephenson looks quite weak relative to other teams around us.

It feels nice to say but you didn't actually give any reasons why we will go past other teams over the next year or two? You know other teams improve too?

 

[Countrypie]

Why are our best years ahead of us when our under 23 group of players is noticeably weaker than most other teams? We've traded out a bunch of 1st rounders and some early 2nd rounders for experienced players, it comes at a cost and our youth outside of Stephenson looks quite weak relative to other teams around us.

I'm talking the next 2 - 3 years and lists have a habit of changing pretty quickly. Expect us to be very active and imaginative in trade period

 

[Kappa]

I'm talking the next 2 - 3 years and lists have a habit of changing pretty quickly. Expect us to be very active and imaginative in trade period

We've been very active the past few years and it's resulted in us having to beg senior players to take contract extensions so we can fit inside the salary cap... All our focus this year will be on trying desperately to keep all of Moore Grundy and De Goey despite rivals being able to offer them probably a lot more coin.

In 2-3 years who are our next Pendlebury's, Swans, Beams?... Josh Daicos? Sier? Tyler Brown? It's a massive downgrade you can't argue that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think you've probably nailed what I was trying to say in the first place. We've over corrected but the intention was never to revert to a failed game style - the over correction will right itself in due course. I also believe that perhaps the over correction is largely coming from those on the list that are not in our top tier - they're the ones feeling the pinch.
On a separate but not necessarily unrelated matter our centre clearance work has gone backwards this year - so much so that I remember thinking that if you didn't know better and were new to the game you'd be excused for thinking that it was a rule that our Ruckmen had to hit it to Dusty. Again, I think a lot of oppo work has been done on our centre clearance work and we're struggling to compensate - maybe we'll see some improvement with Adams in there. I hope so.

And that's the point, did it really needed to be fixed in the 1st place? Regardless of what the opp knew what they'd get (easy prediction) - it's almost impossible to defeat and now as you've pointed out what I've bolded we've got replacements that aren't able to easy follow what the intention of the panel is.

If I could put into words I think the intention is to "have your cake and eat it too" i:e retain the pressure at the contest but perfectly control the transition to avoid turnover the other way. This is almost utopian thinking even arrogant regarding the opp if my summation is somewhat correct.

As far as "grunt" in the contests I'd argue this supposed plan is thought of without injuries or at least to key grunt personnel like an Adams or Sier. If you look at the stats we're still getting the ball more than the opp but that's a result of trying to transition through without risk of losing possession i:e keeping's off chip it around style (control transition)

 

[Countrypie]

We've been very active the past few years and it's resulted in us having to beg senior players to take contract extensions so we can fit inside the salary cap... All our focus this year will be on trying desperately to keep all of Moore Grundy and De Goey despite rivals being able to offer them probably a lot more coin.

In 2-3 years who are our next Pendlebury's, Swans, Beams?... Josh Daicos? Sier? Tyler Brown? It's a massive downgrade you can't argue that.

At present, I can't but let's see what happens

 

[Thatsmyname]

We've been very active the past few years and it's resulted in us having to beg senior players to take contract extensions so we can fit inside the salary cap... All our focus this year will be on trying desperately to keep all of Moore Grundy and De Goey despite rivals being able to offer them probably a lot more coin.

In 2-3 years who are our next Pendlebury's, Swans, Beams?... Josh Daicos? Sier? Tyler Brown? It's a massive downgrade you can't argue that.

In 2 to 3 years we are out of our window and rebuilding anyway, we sold the farm to a certain extent and they didn't buy the right produce, Gubbys efforts in particular have cruelled our options... it's going to have to be fixed on the fly. Cox not emulating his prelim form has thrown a big spanner in the works, he's the wrong side of 28 and missing games, Moore is just missing games... so now we are scrambling for keys, at least Roughy has been an unexpected bonus, but he's also 28

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm talking the next 2 - 3 years and lists have a habit of changing pretty quickly. Expect us to be very active and imaginative in trade period

We've been very active the past few years and it's resulted in us having to beg senior players to take contract extensions so we can fit inside the salary cap... All our focus this year will be on trying desperately to keep all of Moore Grundy and De Goey despite rivals being able to offer them probably a lot more coin.

In 2-3 years who are our next Pendlebury's, Swans, Beams?... Josh Daicos? Sier? Tyler Brown? It's a massive downgrade you can't argue that.

Now we're getting somewhere Kappa puts up a good argument, our "imaginative" trading hasn't really worked out for us since our "Buckley regeneration".

It looks like a punt in desperation to snag a flag.

Wells, Lynch off the top of my head have been wastes IMO and as Kap points out it looks a top up for the here and now and on face value it looks to the detriment of the immediate future if you look at the oppositions list growths.

On the other hand before 2018 our list was not rated, and now our blue collar players have been developed to a very reliable game plan that has made the comp take notice. At least for 2018. There was almost zero list change from 2017

So there is no reason why players like the Bowns, Sier and Daicos's can't develop into very good if not A grade players they are still very young and are from very good stock. Development is key and I'd argue C. Brown is tracking nicely with much more improvement to come - a good example.

 

[sr36]

I think you've probably nailed what I was trying to say in the first place. We've over corrected but the intention was never to revert to a failed game style.

I agree. In terms of transition, I don't think we wanted to go back to the 2014-17 style. To me it's more a matter of the intended style breaking down. We attempted some changes that haven't worked.

You need a fair few links in the chain to transition the footy from defence to the forward and it only occurs smoothly if blokes predict what's going on and run to the spots that will result in a chain. This year has looked the same as those other years, because slow stagnant chipping and kicks down the line is what occurs when you're not connecting and running to the right spots and thus the style you are attempting isn't working.

I do put it on the coaches though, as I believe they tried to introduce a secondary method of moving the footy which has running patterns that are incompatible with our previous method and it has cruelled us. However, I think the last month we've been trying to get back to more cohesive and more dangerous methods. We've got 3 weeks to get it to click.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So on the overall view it has come to this. IMO

• In recent years we've recruited for the here and now and has not been a success, you could argue a failure to some extent.
• This reduces our window to no more than next year, you could argue last year and this year have been our best chance.
• Although the intent is noble, the change in game style has backfired very badly (looks as if it was meant to be "tweaked" to avoid turnover)
• With all that we may have to rebuild after next year, with the hope it all falls into place next year. I don't like this ploy of "hoping", if it were better managed we'd have another flag by now.

Progress is not generally linear but it is not impossible, certainly our game of last year is one to build on and that "build on" has gone awry. If it were up to me I'd revert back to that style. Admittedly risky but more so rewarding and definitely more reliable than what we have now, and what compounds that is that our list is not suited to other styles and our immediate trade prospects compounds that even further.

Not confident.

 

[sr36]

We've been very active the past few years and it's resulted in us having to beg senior players to take contract extensions so we can fit inside the salary cap... All our focus this year will be on trying desperately to keep all of Moore Grundy and De Goey despite rivals being able to offer them probably a lot more coin.

In 2-3 years who are our next Pendlebury's, Swans, Beams?... Josh Daicos? Sier? Tyler Brown? It's a massive downgrade you can't argue that.

I'm much more bullish on our list. Obviously this won't all work out, but in 3 years time, the blue sky possibility is that Grundy, De goey, Stephenson, Moore and Treloar have become genuine stars of the comp. Sidey is still doing his thing with only a small drop. Maynard, Langdon, Adams, WHE, Roughhead, Mihocek are dependable, solid senior players. Brown, Quaynor, Sier, Aish, Noble and Phillips have joined them as solid senior players. A couple of our current VFL project players have come good, as have a couple of other recruits. Woo Hoo, we're contenders!

 

[J Albert]

A positive for me looking forward is that the only player we really rely on with limited time left is Pendles. Beams (hopefully), sidey and Howe will have another two - three good years. Our core are all coming into their peak ie Grundy Trelaor, Adams, Crisp, Maynard. Moore is the key imo. If he can stay fit and firing and stevo and de geoy can continue into stardom, nothing to say we can't contend for next 3 years with a few good list management decisions/addition (like roughy). Window genuinely open. I think our coach and culture are right. Just need some luck and few tweaks and we could snag one.

 

[Kappa]

I'm much more bullish on our list. Obviously this won't all work out, but in 3 years time, the blue sky possibility is that Grundy, De goey, Stephenson, Moore and Treloar have become genuine stars of the comp. Sidey is still doing his thing with only a small drop. Maynard, Langdon, Adams, WHE, Roughhead, Mihocek are dependable, solid senior players. Brown, Quaynor, Sier, Aish, Noble and Phillips have joined them as solid senior players. A couple of our current VFL project players have come good, as have a couple of other recruits. Woo Hoo, we're contenders!

Treloar will be finished in 3 years. Will be about to turn 30, and once he starts to lose his pace he'll quickly drop away. His kicking isn't good enough to be an average speed midfielder

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm much more bullish on our list. Obviously this won't all work out, but in 3 years time, the blue sky possibility is that Grundy, De goey, Stephenson, Moore and Treloar have become genuine stars of the comp. Sidey is still doing his thing with only a small drop. Maynard, Langdon, Adams, WHE, Roughhead, Mihocek are dependable, solid senior players. Brown, Quaynor, Sier, Aish, Noble and Phillips have joined them as solid senior players. A couple of our current VFL project players have come good, as have a couple of other recruits. Woo Hoo, we're contenders!

In your second sentence those players are already stars if not blue chip as far as the comp is concerned. Your next lot Maynard to Checkers are already solid players as far as the comp is concerned too, there's some more ceiling for Maynard and Langdon but reckon we've already seen the limits of the rest.

Brown to Phillips is where the questions lie, they are really unknowns apart from Phillips and Brown - I think those two have developed well and there is more to come, much more.

If you put all that up against ANY opp team (apart from maybe GC) it's an each way bet IMO, so it's all down to how we develop that last group and the brand of footy we want to play. We're disadvantaged from a draft perspective though, so we're gonna have to win a cup based on system rather than the luxury of talent - so development will be key. Luckily it's obvious we know how to develop no names to solid players into a system. (Maynard and Langdon come to mind)

Hazard a guess the panel wants the manic pressure to remain but completely eradicate transitional mistakes - that is a very highly unlikely outcome and probably too much to ask even of the most talented lists like giants or wc. And on face value it "looks" like we've gone back to pre 2018 style which we may have inadvertently. - That's a fail.

 

[sr36]

Treloar will be finished in 3 years. Will be about to turn 30, and once he starts to lose his pace he'll quickly drop away. His kicking isn't good enough to be an average speed midfielder

OK. That leaves us the blue sky 4 genuine stars and an extra solid senior player. Or do you actually believe he will no longer be AFL standard?

 

[Carringbush2010]

A positive for me looking forward is that the only player we really rely on with limited time left is Pendles. Beams (hopefully), sidey and Howe will have another two - three good years. Our core are all coming into their peak ie Grundy Trelaor, Adams, Crisp, Maynard. Moore is the key imo. If he can stay fit and firing and stevo and de geoy can continue into stardom, nothing to say we can't contend for next 3 years with a few good list management decisions/addition (like roughy). Window genuinely open. I think our coach and culture are right. Just need some luck and few tweaks and we could snag one.

We could've already, it's system that has given us window. We've completely stuffed the drafting side of things for the here and now and it that corner (drafting) for the immediate future we're at a disadvantage.

IF we are to contend with that core group we're gonna have to do a 2018 all over again and that is have the whole squad buy into the system. Do that and no one wants to play us. and we'd probably snag one.

Trying to perfect an already solid game plan has blown up in our faces and the panel need to be held to account for that.

 

[sirlothie]

What I read from an opposition supporter that resonated with me as an outside perspective of Collingwood which I thought is actually quite true is we rate our best 22 all on their peak output and top form more than anybody else

So we set ourselves up for disappointment and also hang onto fading stars too long. We go into every game looking at the team on paper thinking they are all going to give peak performance and are inevitably let down when they don't reach it.

I thought that's true you know, we do do that more than others. There's always a lot of big names at Collingwood. Not really ever a big clean out, hard decisions and influx of young talent and trade pick ups. It's just one or two a year and we back everyone to have career years all the time.

 

[sr36]

In your second sentence those players are already stars if not blue chip as far as the comp is concerned. Your next lot Maynard to Checkers are already solid players as far as the comp is concerned too, there's some more ceiling for Maynard and Langdon but reckon we've already seen the limits of the rest.

Brown to Phillips is where the questions lie, they are really unknowns apart from Phillips and Brown - I think those two have developed well and there is more to come, much more.

If you put all that up against ANY opp team (apart from maybe GC) it's an each way bet IMO, so it's all down to how we develop that last group and the brand of footy we want to play. We're disadvantaged from a draft perspective though, so we're gonna have to win a cup based on system rather than the luxury of talent - so development will be key. Luckily it's obvious we know how to develop no names to solid players into a system. (Maynard and Langdon come to mind)

Hazard a guess the panel wants the manic pressure to remain but completely eradicate transitional mistakes - that is a very highly unlikely outcome and probably too much to ask even of the most talented lists like giants or wc. And on face value it "looks" like we've gone back to pre 2018 style which we may have inadvertently. - That's a fail.

I think we're using the phrase 'genuine stars of the competition' differently. To me Grundy is the only one we have and no team has more than 2 or 3. In 3 years time, I actually think it's a genuine chance that Grundy will be joined by Degoey and Stephenson, with Moore as an outside chance and Treloar and even further outside chance of being in the upper echolon of the comp. Massive room for improvement at our top end. Even our gold star Grundy has a fair bit of potential improvement left in him.

 

[sirlothie]

I think we're using the phrase 'genuine stars of the competition' differently. To me Grundy is the only one we have and no team has more than 2 or 3. In 3 years time, I actually think it's a genuine chance that Grundy will be joined by Degoey and Stephenson, with Moore as an outside chance and Treloar and even further outside chance of being in the upper echolon of the comp. Massive room for improvement at our top end. Even our gold star Grundy has a fair bit of potential improvement left in him.

It's your middle core of experienced, established foot soldiers that can get you there. We dread and know we are dead meat if we lose any of our top stars. True long term contenders are full of reliable players so that they can lose a big name like Franklin from Hawthorn and you barely notice, or they might have even got better. Or Geelong can lure Dangerfield but they are not reliant on him. You have to get past relying on stars. Look at Geelong now, they are sliding but are still bringing in in form, good players from the reserves.Narkle looked bloody great in the VFL bursting from the middle and I got bloody jealous they had that in the wings while we are looking under the couch for someone to bring in. I know injuries but injuries have become our identity. We need to operate more like them, you can tell they are better run than us in a lot of aspects and it filters through so they can make that last stride we fail at so often.

 

[sirlothie]

A weak underbelly, that's what we've got.

 

[Quicky]

We could've already, it's system that has given us window. We've completely stuffed the drafting side of things for the here and now and it that corner (drafting) for the immediate future we're at a disadvantage.

IF we are to contend with that core group we're gonna have to do a 2018 all over again and that is have the whole squad buy into the system. Do that and no one wants to play us. and we'd probably snag one.

Trying to perfect an already solid game plan has blown up in our faces and the panel need to be held to account for that.

I couldn't disagree more. The list is really strong. We only lack a star key forward and we gave that our best shot with Lynch. While we need to consolidate and retain some of our first rounders moving forward that's only an issue if we keep throwing them away.

 

[sr36]

It's your middle core of experienced, established foot soldiers that can get you there. We dread and know we are dead meat if we lose any of our top stars. True long term contenders are full of reliable players so that they can lose a big name like Franklin from Hawthorn and you barely notice, or they might have even got better. Or Geelong can lure Dangerfield but they are not reliant on him. You have to get past relying on stars. Look at Geelong now, they are sliding but are still bringing in in form, good players from the reserves.Narkle looked bloody great in the VFL bursting from the middle and I got bloody jealous they had that in the wings while we are looking under the couch for someone to bring in. I know injuries but injuries have become our identity. We need to operate more like them, you can tell they are better run than us in a lot of aspects and it filters through so they can make that last stride we fail at so often.

You might be right, but I tend to think it's your top end and your system that play the bigger part. Solid players look significantly better when they are in a top system beside genuine stars. With the Hawks and the cats b4 them, their top end was so obscenely good that they could afford to lose the best players around and still have more top end talent than anyone else.

 

[sirlothie]

You might be right, but I tend to think it's your top end and your system that play the bigger part. Solid players look significantly better when they are in a top system beside genuine stars. With the Hawks and the cats b4 them, their top end was so obscenely good that they could afford to lose the best players around and still have more top end talent than anyone else.

Still can't remember them getting exposed and seriously questioned since the early 2000's. They have still got a bar of performance they never go below. They are always competitive.