Autopsy "Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn".

[mike123]

I would like us to play along the boundry line again and play high stoppage game. Suits the speed of our players, and we beat Freo in the clearances.

 

[Premier Pies]

I would like us to play along the boundry line again and play high stoppage game. Suits the speed of our players, and we beat Freo in the clearances.

are you taking the piss?

 

[Quicky]

Great read Scodog10! Sitting back and waiting for Greg Baum or someone to plagiarise it for one of their articles. It'll happen.

 

[Old Spice]

I would like us to play along the boundry line again and play high stoppage game. Suits the speed of our players, and we beat Freo in the clearances.

Even Mick isn't doing this anymore.

 

[Old Spice]

My thread comes on the back of the thread Snoop Dog created with the dust having settled on Friday's result.

Today the boys would have been in at the Westpac centre conducting their reviews so why don't we do one of our own. Some involved in the media believe that the game and teams for that matter evolve at a rapid rate, one in particular rabbits on about it being bi monthly (David King for the uninformed). Therefore I intend to put that to the test and bump the thread after each loss as a means of identifying whether we're learning and evolving from our losses or stagnating...

For mine I'm going to attempt to stick to long term issues and not individualize (though that will be a struggle). I'd hope that others will follow suit, but I guess it's hard not to target individuals after such a demoralizing performance.

The three things I learnt about Collingwood were:

1) We genuinely suck at the fundamentals. I'm talking about players getting sucked into the contest, flying third man up when a teammate has a contest covered, fumbling under no pressure, taking a tackler on when you can draw them in and release a player OTT etc. Early season rust, maybe. A sign of something more ingrained, I hope not. If it's the former we can deal with that, but the latter would be alarming.

2) Kick ins both offensive and defensive. I had a look at the smart replay of Friday nights match and in particular the 30 kick ins from both teams. WOW just wow.

Within the space of just 10 kick ins a trend emerged. Johnson (2) and Duffield (3) took their 5 while our first 5 were spread between Maxwell (2), Brown (1), Ball (1) and Pendles (1). So three of our 5 worst kicks in the line up took 4 of the first 5 kick ins.

The next 20 improved slightly, but to nowhere near what I would class a minimum standard. All in all they had just 5 players take their 16 With Johnson and Duffield taking the lions share with 11 between them and good kicks in Pearce and Sutcliffe taking another 3. Conversely we had 6 players share our 14 with 7 coming from players with average to poor foot skills (Frost, Ball, Brown and Maxwell). Just 5 of ours were taken by players that could do any damage (Young 4 & Pendles 1). FWIW Langdon took the other 2.

The main difference though was the ineffectiveness of our zone. They were able to get 12 of 16 beyond 40 metres from goal (2 of which were uncontested ) v 8 out of 14 for us. Set shots are an opportunity to choose who you want the ball in the hands of if it's a miss. Maxwell and Young shared ours 50/50 with 3 apiece. Johnson (1) and Duffield (3) shared their 4...

In a nutshell we were shithouse at this aspect of the game and have been for a while. Our zone was 5-10 metres to close to goal and I know I said I wasn't going to individualise, but Maxwell can you please **** off from kick ins!

3) The extra at the contest doesn't work against certain teams. I'll keep this brief, but an extra at the contest just isn't going to work against a team as disciplined as Fremantle. They won't get sucked into matching your numbers around the ball and will fall back, wait for your turnover and get you on the spread because you commit so many to the contest.

In future unless we're dominating in the middle that extra needs to go back to lend support to an inexperienced and outgunned defensive unit.

There is a lot to take in (especially on the kick ins which I could have further analyzed), but I think it's all relevant to how we can learn as a team moving forward.

I'd also like feedback from neutrals if they care to get involved because sometimes supporters can get too singleminded and miss things that might be obvious to an outsider

Very good attention to detail, but a few points.

1 Sucked into Contests There was a very obvious example where Frost probably followed his man in as the last in the pack but needed to stay back to cover Ballantyne at the back.

Similarly, we need smalls like Elliot to stay out of major pack contests and park themselves 2-3 metres at the front of the contest for a spill.

In both cases, I don't think it is a structure thing so much as a matter of experience. When Krakouer returned last year he knew exactly where to position himself in these forward contests.

2 Defensive kick ins I agree that we should have better kicks coming from the defensive square. I'd designate Langdon as a prospect there and probably Young, Sidebottom and Fasolo as the mainstays.

3 The Extra Player I don't mind an extra player around the centre clearances when someone like Sandilands is rucking with our mid strength. Our mids just need to be more defensive at the contest but not all at the pack, a la point 1. We need to have players with experience to know when it's right to bustle the ball forward and when it won't happen and therefore when to take an outside position for a receive or position defensive side for an opposition break-away.

I think if it's done properly, we can have a 7 man defence to clog, some presence around the middle and an open forward line that favours our forwards.

 

[PieNSauce]

Personally I'll keep my powder dry on what needs to change because after one game and with some serious personnel deficiencies I'm not sure any analysis of the specific weaknesses we saw on Friday isn't just a bit premature. That said, the issues pointed out are a concern and if the style played in the final 3 quarters on Friday indicate what we've been working on over summer then Bucks may have a big job on his hands. The problem is that you do tend to structure a game plan around the list and their capabilities and with bookend KPP's missing it's always going to be hard to execute much at all. Of course that also says something about the list when you can't cover for injuries but I don't know too many clubs that have AA key defenders or big mobile forwards lying about everywhere. Time will tell but I'm hoping that some tweaks and the inclusion of a bit more experience and class will make the difference to at least be competitive. This board will melt down if we get hammered by Sydney to anything near the extent of Friday's debacle.

 

[Scodog10]

Very good attention to detail, but a few points.

1 Sucked into Contests There was a very obvious example where Frost probably followed his man in as the last in the pack but needed to stay back to cover Ballantyne at the back.

Similarly, we need smalls like Elliot to stay out of major pack contests and park themselves 2-3 metres at the front of the contest for a spill.

In both cases, I don't think it is a structure thing so much as a matter of experience. When Krakouer returned last year he knew exactly where to position himself in these forward contests.

2 Defensive kick ins I agree that we should have better kicks coming from the defensive square. I'd designate Langdon as a prospect there and probably Young, Sidebottom and Fasolo as the mainstays.

3 The Extra Player I don't mind an extra player around the centre clearances when someone like Sandilands is rucking with our mid strength. Our mids just need to be more defensive at the contest but not all at the pack, a la point 1. We need to have players with experience to know when it's right to bustle the ball forward and when it won't happen and therefore when to take an outside position for a receive or position defensive side for an opposition break-away.

I think if it's done properly, we can have a 7 man defence to clog, some presence around the middle and an open forward line that favours our forwards.

Just with the extra player I know why we did it, but I still can't relate with how that was going to win the match overall. Looking over our midfield, unfortunately due to injury, it didn't run very deep on Friday night. In some sort of order I had these as our midfield numbers.

Beams
Pendles
Swan
Ball
Adams
Sidebottom

We then had utility types to add some size we could run through there in.

Lumumba
Young
Macaffer

6 mids and 3 utilities isn't enough in today's game and is probably 2 short unless you pick a second utility type so the two I'm talking are JT and one of Dwyer/ Fasolo/ Blair.

We came up against the most dominant ruckman in the game so the coaching staff's logic would have been that we're short on numbers overall, but we can make up the difference by increasing the numbers at the contest. They also probably would have thought that by chucking ours behind the play it won't be as dangerous as Freo's so let's use it to attack. It sounds fair enough if the mids you do have use the ball efficiently at the contest (which ours don't) and run both ways like demons (which again ours don't), but through the evolution of our line up they are the two areas I question about our midfield.

I guess to cut to the chase the ultimate goal was to win the match with that tactic. With that being the case the game was over at half time so why persist with it and not throw a number behind the ball to limit the damage? It's a constant through most of our defeats that on the whole we're pretty proactive (which I like), but when things don't go our way we remain stagnant and stick to the plan which is sometimes to our sever detriment.

 

[piedpiper32]

I guess to cut to the chase the ultimate goal was to win the match with that tactic. With that being the case the game was over at half time so why persist with it and not throw a number behind the ball to limit the damage? It's a constant through most of our defeats that on the whole we're pretty proactive (which I like), but when things don't go our way we remain stagnant and stick to the plan which is sometimes to our sever detriment.

Absolutely correct. And to those that say this was only the first game well unfortunately this type of thing was happening last season too.

In-game coaching is a game of chess and you can guarantee the good opposition coaches are going to throw curve balls at us during the course of the game. Too often we just stubbornly stick with the same game plan and do not respond effectively.

I like Buckley and what he is doing to put his stamp on the team and the culture. Being the competitive beast that he is I would not be surprised if he puts in more preparation than anyone else leading into games. BUT I have concerns about his in-game coaching and ability to act and respond on the fly. Am willing to give it a bit more time given the injuries and list turnover, but would want to see some definite improvement in this area early this season.

 

[Scodog10]

Great read Scodog10! Sitting back and waiting for Greg Baum or someone to plagiarise it for one of their articles. It'll happen.

Haha they can have that. It's nothing compared to what I'm working on analysis wise with Collingwood related kick in data. Which I'll eventually correlate to league wide analysis, but only if Collongwood aren't interested in it (I intend to submit it to our football analysts).

 

[Travis bloke]

The problem was we were missing 8 top 22 players who would play regularly while freo had a full side

End of Story stop with the kicking excuses etc.

I will say this again take any 8 regular players out of any side ,you lose physically and psychologically.

We need to field asap a regular side so they can get use to playing together.

Once we get regularity then the skills confidance etc happens until then twiddle your thumbs lads,

Teams like the Gold Coast GWS Port Adelaide,Hawks Freo are starting or already have a settled side therefore they know their game plan and how to execute.

Its not that Buckley doesn't know what he wants done but the inconsitancy of injuries etc has not allowed us to settle a regular side .This is the secret

 

[Hva sher a]

Agree with foot skills. We lack in that department. And as an extension of that, our conversion rate. I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be for mid fielders who work hard to deliver the ball to a scoring position, only for it to be missed time after time.

Agreed
I'm probably being simplistic but the open nature of AFL footy means that it is rare for a game plan to completely dominate another game plan. It's poor execution and more importantly poor conversion that counts.
Would we be having this thread if we had kicked straighter for goal. Momentum is such a big thing and if we had converted better, all the talk of coast to coast etc would be reduced.
It can be a simple game. The best counter to an opposition's game plan is to simply kick more goals!

 

[Scodog10]

Absolutely correct. And to those that say this was only the first game well unfortunately this type of thing was happening last season too.

In-game coaching is a game of chess and you can guarantee the good opposition coaches are going to throw curve balls at us during the course of the game. Too often we just stubbornly stick with the same game plan and do not respond effectively.

I like Buckley and what he is doing to put his stamp on the team and the culture. Being the competitive beast that he is I would not be surprised if he puts in more preparation than anyone else leading into games. BUT I have concerns about his in-game coaching and ability to act and respond on the fly. Am willing to give it a bit more time given the injuries and list turnover, but would want to see some definite improvement in this area early this season.

That was the main reason for the thread I feel exactly the same way, but we've never really tracked it on our forum.

With this thread and how I (and I hope others) intend to use it is as a point of reference to check back on whether we're improving on what we perceive as problem areas or continually making the same mistakes over and over.

I agree with the Buckley direction of the playing group too mainly because if he doesn't work out he's going to leave us in a strong position ala Primus at Port. As opposed to MM at Carlton.

 

[Scodog10]

I would like us to play along the boundry line again and play high stoppage game. Suits the speed of our players, and we beat Freo in the clearances.

I agree with the best 22 we have ATM. The problem is it doesn't suit our recruiting strategies post 2011 at all.

Remember we're currently in a period of transition so though that may work in the short term it won't in the medium to long term.

In 2-3 years time when ideally guys like Freeman, Langdon, Oxley, Scharanberg, Broomhead, Ramsay and Marsh start pushing out the likes of Goldsack, Lumumba, Macaffer, Ball, Swan and Maxwell the game plan just won't fit.

 

[Mame]

That was the main reason for the thread I feel exactly the same way, but we've never really tracked it on our forum.

With this thread and how I (and I hope others) intend to use it is as a point of reference to check back on whether we're improving on what we perceive as problem areas or continually making the same mistakes over and over.

I agree with the Buckley direction of the playing group too mainly because if he doesn't work out he's going to leave us in a strong position ala Primus at Port. As opposed to MM at Carlton.

This. I just hope he's still there to be part of the success.

 

[Scodog10]

This. I just hope he's still there to be part of the success.

It's a tough one because I don't particularly want a club legend to cop the flak Buckley's in for if we really struggle (again like Primus) only to then hand over to someone that takes us all the way, but if it results in a premiership well you definitely can't complain...

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Haha they can have that. It's nothing compared to what I'm working on analysis wise with Collingwood related kick in data. Which I'll eventually correlate to league wide analysis, but only if Collongwood aren't interested in it (I intend to submit it to our football analysts).

Pretty sure Wags would be interested

 

[Scodog10]

Pretty sure Wags would be interested

Cheers mate it's the main fear I had

It's going to be a shittonne of work (that may not even prove my theories correct) so at least if the club are happy to take a look at it I'm justified in putting the time in!

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Cheers mate it's the main fear I had

It's going to be a shittonne of work (that may not even prove my theories correct) so at least if the club are happy to take a look at it I'm justified in putting the time in!

Any research is worth the time put in if it's comprehensive - even if to conclusively prove or disprove a theory. Good luck - will be happy to donate to crowd-funding the coffee budget you need for it

 

[Scodog10]

Any research is worth the time put in if it's comprehensive - even if to conclusively prove or disprove a theory. Good luck - will be happy to donate to crowd-funding the coffee budget you need for it

That is true and being proved correct would be a huge bonus!

Time fortunately is the one asset I do have ATM with being back at uni and now I'm into the swing of research again I might as well use that time constructively

 

[Scodog10]

It's sometimes interesting to go to opposition games because as an impartial observer you find it easier to pick trends that may not be obvious when watching your own team play.

I went to great lengths about the extra man at the contest against Freo, how it was the one strategy that killed us in round one and now having watched Hawthorn last night against them I've figured out how to take advantage of it. It's so simple and so genius that I'm pissed off with myself for not noticing it prior to last night.

Whenever Hawthorn won a clearance in last nights match they kicked to touch. Simple. If they won a centre clearance last night instead of bombing it I50, which we seemed obsessed with doing in round 1, Hawthorn kicked it on the 45 angle toward the boundary and into space. What it did was spread the Fremantle defenders and cause more stoppages where Hawthorn could assert their clearance dominance. The added bonus is that without the intercept marks it doesn't mean that Fremantle can beat you on the spread and it protects our midfielders who aren't strong two way runners.

Hat's off to the Hawthorn coaching staff. There were certainly mitigating circumstances with no Fyfe, Barlow and the fatigue factor from last weeks match against GC playing a part, but the slow the game tactic certainly works for strong stoppage teams v Fremantle.

It also provided a strong insight into Hawthorn. They're getting older and they can certainly be beaten with the quick play and it appears that they know it. Essendon got them with it last week (the word I'd use is ballistic) and it'll be quite interesting to see how GC go with that style of play next week especially considering that GC are also strong at the contest when on. That'll be my must watch match of the round!!