Autopsy Round 21 = Hawthorn 97-78 Collingwood

Remove this Banner Ad

Big Bryza said:
We were made to look far, far better than we actually are last week. West Coast were putrid. The Hawks came with a simple game plan. Block up the middle of the ground and pressure our ball carrier. They held their shape in defence and we fell back in to old habits by kicking it straight down their throats, time and time again. They smashed us on the rebound as we didn't come with any defensive intent.

Plenty of positives though. We've nailed the 5 picks we had in the top 30 of the draft last year. Ginnivan is going to be really fun to watch. However, I do think umpires and opposition alike will start to cotton on to his tactic of getting tackled high.

Knowing our form line, we'll come out and beat Brisbane this week. I'd dearly love to knock Essendon out of the 8 in the final round.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, BB. Hawthorn clearly did their research and developed a strategy to deal with us. Not only that but they implemented the strategy very well indeed. It's not unreasonable to expect that we were not able to replicate last week's effort. We are a young team transitioning from one game style to a completely different one, and under a new head coach, no less; so I think it at least realistic that this will happen. This does not disappoint me as finals are out of the question so experience and diverse offerings are the order from here on out. I am pleased with how we are tracking and am confident that we will be much better next season, irrespective of whomever is at the helm.
 
Abdul_The_Bull said:
Excellent points, BB. Hawthorn clearly did their research and developed a strategy to deal with us. Not only that but they implemented the strategy very well indeed. It's not unreasonable to expect that we were not able to replicate last week's effort. We are a young team transitioning from one game style to a completely different one, and under a new head coach, no less; so I think it at least realistic that this will happen. This does not disappoint me as finals are out of the question so experience and diverse offerings are the order from here on out. I am pleased with how we are tracking and am confident that we will be much better next season, irrespective of whomever is at the helm.
Click to expand...

Also made it hard that Hawks put Pressure on us where Eagles let us do what we wanted
 
barrackers said:
Also, what genius thought it be funny to have Dunstall and Lewis commentating a hawks game together plus known Collingwood hater Dal Santo thrown in for an extra troll measure.

Where was press red for Ed to balance things up.
Click to expand...

I actually thought they were okay all things being equal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

barrackers said:
Cameron's marking weakness is Cox's strength and vice versa. Cameron is good at standing still and plucking a mark while Cox's best is on the lead. Unless Cameron can improve his leading he'll only ever a be bit part forward.
Click to expand...

Thought he actually had 1 of his better games through the ruck which was good to see, but got pantsed forward of the footy. Becomes invisible beyond the contests though which remains a problem.

This might have actually been the week to have Cox inside F50 to change their defensive matchups. Got too easy for them to defend when beyond Checkers, Cameron and Elliott we became overly reliant on Henry, Ginnivan and McCreery
 
Scritchyscroony said:
I'm not one of the Grundy Haters but Ceglar was clearly the better ruckman today imv. Grundy gives his all has has great stats but this often doesn't translate to any significant advantage to our side. There's an ongoing Grundy issue that needs working out... it wont just go away.
Click to expand...

Nah. I thought Grundy had the better of both Ceglar and McEvoy in the ruck. When they rotated forward on the other hand....
 
sr36 said:
I think one of the big issues is that we switch it so slowly and predictably that we may as well not bother switching at all, because the opposition are set up on the other flank by the time the ball gets there.
Click to expand...

You switch as your opponent allows you to. They maintained really good defensive structures behind the footy. You either move more slowly as a consequence or take a risk. We took our fair share of risks.
 
jackcass said:
You switch as your opponent allows you to. They maintained really good defensive structures behind the footy. You either move more slowly as a consequence or take a risk. We took our fair share of risks.
Click to expand...
I'm talking more generally than just that game. But they didn't seem to be pushing up harder to stop or slow the switch than normal.

They were awesomely organised though. If you can stop us moving forward from defence with forward passes and also get numbers back into defensive 50, we're stuffed, as we don't kick it well enough to pick our way through and switch so slowly that it's a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
jackcass said:
Nah. I thought Grundy had the better of both Ceglar and McEvoy in the ruck. When they rotated forward on the other hand....
Click to expand...
Grundy had the better of the tap duel but that's it. Ceglar was better around the ground. Stats show it.
 
Scritchyscroony said:
Grundy had the better of the tap duel but that's it. Ceglar was better around the ground. Stats show it.
Click to expand...
I mean, some stats, like disposals (20-16, mostly handballs) and clearances (8-4) favour Ceglar. But they took the same amount of marks, Grundy laid 6 tackles to 1, Grundy kicked a goal unlike Ceglar, and Grundy gained 209 metres to Ceglar's 143. Not sure it's a clear win either way in terms of around the ground.
 
gouki88 said:
I mean, some stats, like disposals (20-16, mostly handballs) and clearances (8-4) favour Ceglar. But they took the same amount of marks, Grundy laid 6 tackles to 1, Grundy kicked a goal unlike Ceglar, and Grundy gained 209 metres to Ceglar's 143. Not sure it's a clear win either way in terms of around the ground.
Click to expand...
My assessment of their impact on the game gives the win to Ceglar. 20 disposals with 8 clearances is pretty impressive don't you think? Prob the best clearance player on the ground! He was Grundy's direct opponent. It was Grundy"s job to nullify him as much as it was to find the ball himself.
I'm not potting Grundy. He's had a pretty good year. I love his work ethic but I wish we'd get more clear advantage from our ruck position more often.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scritchyscroony said:
My assessment of their impact on the game gives the win to Ceglar.
I'm not potting Grundy. He's had a pretty good year. I love his work ethic but I wish we'd get more clear advantage from our ruck position more often.
Click to expand...
I agree. I really dislike our refusal to change tactics when we come up against a team that plays two true ruckmen, as Grundy struggles more when he can't out-endurance the oppo rucks. Should have played Lynch
 
gouki88 said:
I agree. I really dislike our refusal to change tactics when we come up against a team that plays two true ruckmen, as Grundy struggles more when he can't out-endurance the oppo rucks. Should have played Lynch
Click to expand...
I'm thinking we should be trying 2 ruckmen as well. We have Cameron. I'd just play them as a traditional ruck duo switching in forward pocket for a while. Be good for both their development. Grundy really hasn't played forward much at all to this point of his career.
 
Scritchyscroony said:
I'm thinking we should be trying 2 ruckmen as well. We have Cameron. I'd just play them as a traditional ruck duo switching in forward pocket for a while. Be good for both their development. Grundy really hasn't played forward much at all to this point of his career.
Click to expand...
Problem is we’d need to add another key forward to the mix but we don’t have well. The Grundy/Cameron duo was good when Moore was up forward.
 
Scritchyscroony said:
My assessment of their impact on the game gives the win to Ceglar. 20 disposals with 8 clearances is pretty impressive don't you think? Prob the best clearance player on the ground! He was Grundy's direct opponent. It was Grundy"s job to nullify him as much as it was to find the ball himself.
I'm not potting Grundy. He's had a pretty good year. I love his work ethic but I wish we'd get more clear advantage from our ruck position more often.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I’m happy to agree to disagree. Thought Grundy was the best ruck man in the game. I think you’re overlooking that Ceglar was also opposed to Cameron.
 
mike123 said:
Problem is we’d need to add another key forward to the mix but we don’t have well. The Grundy/Cameron duo was good when Moore was up forward.
Click to expand...
Not if the changing ruckman rests in the forward pocket rather than the bench like the old timers did. We'd have one of Grundy/Cameron as our second tall forward at all times. It'd be the same forward structure as we have already, just with Grundy there more often. Grundy can work on his forward craft and Cameron can develop his ruckwork. Seems like something we need to do to me. How do they develop the extra string to their bow if they're not given the chance on the field? Gives us extra bench rotations for the mids too.
 
Scritchyscroony said:
Not if the changing ruckman rests in the forward pocket rather than the bench like the old timers did. We'd have one of Grundy/Cameron as our second tall forward at all times. It'd be the same forward structure as we have already, just with Grundy there more often. Grundy can work on his forward craft and Cameron can develop his ruckwork. Seems like something we need to do to me. How do they develop the extra string to their bow if they're not given the chance on the field? Gives us extra bench rotations for the mids too.
Click to expand...
What your saying is correct but Cameron is already playing up forward when he isnt rucking. We'll need the extra key forward to allow us to move Cameron away from full forward.
 
mike123 said:
What your saying is correct but Cameron is already playing up forward when he isnt rucking. We'll need the extra key forward to allow us to move Cameron away from full forward.
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting we play Cameron and Grundy as alternating rucks/forward pockets who rest close to goal when not tucking and don't come off. Play a small as a lead up FF till we have a key forward
 
adammania9 said:
No Gunston, no Breust, no Smith, no Roughead, no Hodge, no Mitchell… an entire generation of Hawks have passed and they are still handing it to us every single time. And it was clear as day after their first two goals that we weren’t up to it. Awful showing.

In the end, another final margin that flattered us in the end after our opponents flicked off the switch. There was a 10 goal gulf in class and they would have won by at least that if they tried.

Ugly days for Quaynor, Mihocek, McCreery, Cameron, JT, Noble and Mayne. Plenty of senior players lacked the required intent too.
Click to expand...
Hawks style is v high workrate and being a young team they always tire in last half. So that's the price they pay for that game plan and they've lost games from having good leads early this year because of it. So the margin was actually about right. WE were def off our game but how much of that was a young team lacking mental toughness to avoid getting deflated when Dawks frustrated them so effectively in first half. But they did rally and regain confidence in last half which is prob good coaching from Harvs. I'd actually be happy with either of those 2 coaches next year.
 
Somebody said:
Hawks style is v high workrate and being a young team they always tire in last half. So that's the price they pay for that game plan and they've lost games from having good leads early this year because of it. So the margin was actually about right. WE were def off our game but how much of that was a young team lacking mental toughness to avoid getting deflated when Dawks frustrated them so effectively in first half. But they did rally and regain confidence in last half which is prob good coaching from Harvs. I'd actually be happy with either of those 2 coaches next year.
Click to expand...

and they where playing against us so we not really good enough to come back from a Big Deficit
 
In spite of the 2021 season having spasmodic periods of success, Collingwood's season of failure continued against Hawthorn by 19 points, courtesy of an indifferent first half from the Magpies where they were not able to play their brand of footy over four quarters, especially early when the game was there to be won. Constant pressure and high accountability from the Hawks meant there was no proper time and space for Collingwood to hit targets by foot, let alone by hand where every avenue all over the ground was closed off, which subsequently resulted on any clanger or turnover from the Woods resulting in goals to Hawthorn, while the Pies had a disjointed structure forward of the play and conjured goals with a higher degree of difficulty compared to their opponents who converted their majors much more easily and effectively.

The statistical categories Collingwood won on the day were contested possessions by +2 (116 - 114), with intercept possessions won by +2 (64 - 62), while hit-outs had a differential of +6 (41 - 35), centre clearances were up by +3 (15 - 12), and +14 for tackles (52 - 38). Hawthorn won the major statistical categories by monopolising disposals by +58 (433 - 375), +18 for kicks (238 - 220), handballs were up by +40 (195 - 155), while uncontested possessions had a margin of +64 (319 - 253). Clearances were won by +6 (39 - 33), with stoppage clearances won by +9 (27 - 18), while uncontested marks had a differential of +24 (125 - 101), and Marks Inside 50 were up by +3 ( 11 - 8 ). Tackles Inside 50 had a narrow gain of +2 (6 - 4), while there was a margin of +3 for Inside 50s (48 - 45). Contested Marks (12 apiece) was the only category in dispute from the match.

Taylor Adams (30 disposals @ 80%, 438 metres gained, 10 contested possessions, 20 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 18 kicks, 12 handballs, 6 marks, 3 tackles, 4 score involvements, 6 clearances, 3 centre clearances, 3 stoppage clearances, 3 Inside 50s & 5 Rebound 50s) was one of the few players to lead by his actions with a prominent presence under the packs, cleared the ball forward when he could, while presenting as a marking outlet when none of his teammates wanted to lead out into open space.

Jordan De Goey (28 disposals @ 82%, 277 metres gained, 12 contested possessions, 16 uncontested possessions, 2 intercept possessions, 14 kicks, 14 handballs, 6 marks, 2 tackles, 3 score involvements, 8 clearances, 6 centre clearances, 2 stoppage clearances & 4 Inside 50s) enjoyed a prolific clearance-based game where he did most of the damage in the midfield. Annoyingly though, his teammates could not capitalise on his dominance in the middle by converting goals from centre clearances. De Goey was the only midfielder that gave Adams any meaningful assistance in a team that had very few contributors across the field.

Chris Mayne (26 disposals @ 85%, 190 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 23 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 9 kicks, 17 handballs, 7 marks, 3 tackles, 4 score involvements) had stints in defence and on the wing where he accumulated possessions with high efficiency. Mayne spent most of his time racking up marks before looking for a short kicking option to keep possession or handpass to teammate who had more time to dispose of the ball, which rarely occurred.

Steele Sidebottom (22 disposals @ 73%, 9 contested possessions, 13 uncontested possessions, 10 kicks, 12 handballs, 2 marks, 6 tackles, 1 goal assist, 3 score involvements, 4 clearances, 4 stoppage clearances, 2 Inside 50s & 1 goal) did not impact the play meaningfully at all, with most of his disposals missing targets or that had become stagnant passes that did not gain very much territory.

Finlay Macrae (20 disposals @ 80%, 164 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 15 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 8 kicks, 12 handballs, 4 marks, 2 tackles, 3 score involvements, 2 clearances, 2 centre clearances, 2 Inside 50s & 1 goal) showed promising signs with his ability to win the ball cleanly and hit targets when they were on offer. Macrae was able to drift forward to convert his first AFL goal where he took advantage of the advantage call and was able to kick the goal in the opening term before the game got away from the Magpies. That moment was the biggest highlight on an afternoon of many lowlights against the brown and gold.

Brodie Grundy (16 disposals @ 62%, 209 metres gained, 10 contested possessions, 6 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 31 hit-outs, 9 kicks, 7 handballs, 6 marks, 2 Contested Marks, 6 tackles, 1 goal assist, 4 score involvements, 4 clearances, 2 centre clearances, 2 stoppage clearances, 3 Inside 50s, 2 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) dominated ruck contests all day for no reward, while marking has become a feature of Grundy's game recently. Brodie gave De Goey and Adams every opportunity to cash in on the scoreboard from centre clearances and were not able to deliver quality up forward.

Will Hoskin-Elliott (16 disposals @ 81%, 203 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 5 handballs, 7 marks, 3 tackles, 2 goal assists, 4 score involvements & 4 Inside 50s) made the most of his limited forays forward by creating goals from the wing where he took the bulk of his marks.

Jack Crisp (28 disposals @ 86%, 280 metres gained, 9 contested possessions, 19 uncontested possessions, 6 intercept possessions, 13 kicks, 15 handballs, 7 marks, 3 tackles, 7 score involvements, 3 clearances, 2 centre clearances & 2 Rebound 50s) enjoyed another fine game with excellent ball use from defence, and he was prepared to work higher up the ground to take marks which generally resulted in a shot at goal each time. Crisp moved into the midfield late in the piece to give his team a midfield option to create scores from clearances.

Brayden Maynard (21 disposals @ 81%, 372 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 19 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 16 kicks, 5 handballs, 9 marks, 5 tackles, 2 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 4 Rebound 50s) endured a tough day, but managed to contribute to his team's ball movement alongside Crisp with a number of accurate kicks that maintained possession or were kicked to a contest so his team had a chance of competing aerially for them to be effective.

Isaac Quaynor (18 disposals @ 78%, 272 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 7 intercept possessions, 9 kicks, 9 handballs, 4 marks, 4 score involvements & 3 Rebound 50s) played one of his worst games of the season with a number of inexplicable clangers by foot making it impossible for his team to defend ball movement and turnovers. Despite making those errors, Quaynor provided dash and continued to win the ball in dangerous positions defensively. His kicking game will need improvement in the final fortnight of the regular season.

Jeremy Howe (16 disposals @ 88%, 309 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 5 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 5 handballs, 5 marks, 3 tackles, 3 score involvements & 7 Rebound 50s) looked to retain possession by foot as often as possible, and looked to kick longer to a contest when all of the exits became unavailable. Howe was able to take a nice hanger in the last term to demonstrate that he has not lost aerial ability and strength to fly for his marks.

John Noble (18 disposals @ 78%, 390 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 15 uncontested possessions, 2 intercept possessions, 12 kicks, 6 handballs, 4 marks, 2 tackles, 1 goal assist, 4 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 2 Rebound 50s) started the game up forward before pushing extremely high up the ground where he spent time on the wing and half-back to win possession as supply up forward was not exactly fruitful. Looked to create scoring opportunities when he could, which did not occur frequently.

Josh Thomas (18 disposals @ 78%, 178 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 13 uncontested possessions, 4 intercept possessions, 8 kicks, 10 handballs, 5 marks, 1 goal assist, 4 score involvements & 3 Inside 50s) had no influence on the game, despite working high and hard up the ground to take his marks and win possession. Thomas is not an effective forward when he is leading beyond the forward arc to have an impact. No pressure or tackling up forward from Thomas made life very simple for Hawthorn's rebounding defenders.

Jamie Elliott (14 disposals @ 79%, 201 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 11 uncontested possessions, 10 kicks, 4 handballs, 4 marks, 4 score involvements, 3 Inside 50s & 2 goals) made the most of his limited opportunities up forward, and Elliott made sure he stayed relatively close to home so his team had an option across half-forward or closer to goal when the opportunities presented themselves.

Darcy Cameron (11 disposals @ 82%, 114 metres gained, 9 contested possessions, 2 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 10 hit-outs, 8 kicks, 3 handballs, 5 marks, 4 Contested Marks, 7 score involvements, 2 clearances, 2 stoppage clearances & 1 goal) competed well in aerial contests to take a number of excellent pack marks up forward, while giving Grundy a spell in the ruck when it was required and did not look out of place when he went into the ruck, while winning his fair share of hit-outs and a couple of clearances.

Oliver Henry (11 disposals @ 73%, 181 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 7 uncontested possessions, 2 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 7 marks, 3 tackles, 5 score involvements, 3 Inside 50s & 1 goal) worked hard for his marks and possessions up forward which did not come easily, and Henry contributed to the team's scoring chains while conjuring a neat snap on his non-preferred foot (left boot) in the second term.

Beau McCreery (10 disposals @ 70%, 137 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 8 uncontested possessions, 6 kicks, 4 handballs, 5 marks, 2 goal assists, 4 score involvements & 4 Inside 50s) stayed active and busy up forward without kicking any goals. Regular marks and creating goals ended up being the order of the day for McCreery.

Brody Mihocek (8 disposals @ 75%, 108 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 6 uncontested possessions, 7 kicks, 6 marks, 2 Contested Marks, 4 score involvements & 2 goals) was unsighted in the first half, before a slight lift in the second half saw him impact the scoreboard on an otherwise filthy and quiet day for Collingwood's most prominent key target.

Jack Ginnivan (7 disposals @ 86%, 131 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 5 uncontested possessions, 6 kicks, 3 marks, 4 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 3 goals) may not have had many disposals, but he most certainly cashed in with the amount of goals he was able to convert when supply and scoring were at a premium.

Collingwood's next game will be against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba on August 14. Two games left to be played in this ravaged season, so making them count with victories against the grain will be a godsend to those wearing black and white stripes.
 
Last edited:
Execution was clearly an issue. Although Hawthorn applied pressure that may have contributed to the poor disposal efficiency I feel that this was not the sole reason we performed poorly. Sometimes you just have down days. There were a large number of culprits here. I lost count of the number of forward 50 entries that not only missed targets but weren't even close. Jamie Elliot presented well all day and his frustration at the poor delivery was evident. I thought at one stage he was going to 'go right off' at his teammates. Of course, delivery into forward 50, especially to leading targets, has been woeful for a very long time - just ask Cox!
I believe that as the kids get more experienced their confidence will grow and so will skill level, resulting in improved DE. I much prefer our game plan under Harvey and believe that when we more consistently hit targets our opposition will be the ones under pressure.
One swallow does not a Summer maketh...
 
Scritchyscroony said:
My assessment of their impact on the game gives the win to Ceglar. 20 disposals with 8 clearances is pretty impressive don't you think? Prob the best clearance player on the ground! He was Grundy's direct opponent. It was Grundy"s job to nullify him as much as it was to find the ball himself.
I'm not potting Grundy. He's had a pretty good year. I love his work ethic but I wish we'd get more clear advantage from our ruck position more often.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that outside of the Brisbane game early, I reckon that's the game where his ruck work helped us the most. It looked to me like lots of direct taps to blokes who got clear. I came on here after the game expecting to see praise for improved ruckwork. Particularly the first half. Were his hitouts to advantage stats better than normal (I don't know where to find them) or did I imagine it all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PonsfordMagpie
Toast Round 4 = Collingwood 77-72 Hawthorn
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
618
Views
14K
sideswipe
sideswipe
PonsfordMagpie
Review Round 21 = Hawthorn 105-73 Collingwood
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
604
Views
21K
TradeDraft
TradeDraft
Apples
Didaka Award: Rnd 4 - Collingwood V Hawthorn
Replies
22
Views
381
Mollythedolly
Mollythedolly
Jen2310
VFL VFL Round 4 v Coburg @ Piranha Park - Sunday April 21, 1:05pm.
Replies
0
Views
51
Jen2310
Jen2310
unplugged
  • Locked
Game Day Round 2 vs. St Kilda, MCG, 7:30pm Thurs 21/03
67 68 69 70 71
Replies
2K
Views
37K
Maggie5
Maggie5
PonsfordMagpie
Autopsy Round 1 = Collingwood 69-102 Sydney
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
459
Views
15K
sr36
sr36
gouki88
Review Opening Round = GWS 114-82 Collingwood
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
410
Views
13K
unplugged
unplugged

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top