Analysis System, buy in and talent

[Scodog10]

How would we as a collective rate our club in those three areas? IMO, they are the three drivers of success in modern footy.

Adelaide have all three covered in spades with their amazing ball movement, talent on every line and they speak about Pyke as some sort of demi god. Brisbane have a fantastic system in place now under Fagan, but lack the talent to move out of the lower reaches of the ladder. Despite that we've seen a rapid turnaround in form over the past 12 weeks once they started to really buy in to his philosophy. Richmond probably lack the talent to be at the top end, but their 'guns n rookies' strategy is really working with the buy in they have of an improved system. Does it get any more talented than GWS? However until recently I would have questioned the buy in to the system. The system itself is strong yet they sometimes play like 22 individuals that just want to do their own thing.

I could continue like this for each club throughout the league because they're such great indicators of a teams quality. This brings me to my ratings of Collingwood.

Talent: I don't see us all that far behind Geelong and Richmond if not on par. All three have strengths and weaknesses, but in order to be as successful as the more talented teams the other areas need to be at a high level. 7.5/10.

Buy in: Outwardly it appears the playing group love the coach so who am I to argue with them. How else do you lose 11 games throughout a season by an average of only 19 points? It's also the white knight in Buckley's bid for a contract extension. 9/10.

System: Hmm what do you say about the Collingwood system that hasn't been said before? The answer is nothing. Anyone with a knowledge of the game has picked apart our issues over the past five years. Until it's sorted we'll continue to languish in the no mans land area of the ladder. 4/10.

I'm clearly of the view that there's enough talent there to not have been out of the finals race as early as we were, but I'm sure others will see it differently so what can be done to further nurture the talent we already have? What do people believe can be done to improve our system regardless of who's in charge moving forward? Is my POV even relevant to why we're currently so mediocre?

 

[Eric_Melvin]

Id strongly suggest high quality assistants need to be sought. Right from the breakdown of the Malthouse handover/nurturing, we have seen a lack of support given to Buckley, including the succession of department heads giving a lack of continuity.
I also think the boys club mentality exists, putting lovely blokes like Lockyer and Rocca into highly specilised developmental roles, and perhaps overlooking more experienced offerings from outside.
If the bloke is to get a contract extension, also provide him the support to get the job done. If he stays, a serious cleanup of the assistants is absolutely necessary. Thats my opinion.

 

[ant22]

I think people have overrated the closeness of our games this year when linking that to a significant improvement.

There has not many teams in the comp that have been smashed week in week out. While I have not seen the stats I don't remember a season where there have been so many close games. I would not be surprised if the average margin this year is the smallest on record. I think it is more a case of the top sides falling off a bit rather than the bottom sides closing the gap. As exciting as the season has been the standard hasn't been great.

I agree player buy in looks alot better than the last couple of years.

Geez we are horrible to watch though. I still have absolutely no idea what the game plan is. Occasionally we get excited and see some good footy but its often on the back of individual brilliance like Degoeys 2nd half against the eagles.

 

[ant22]

Id strongly suggest high quality assistants need to be sought. Right from the breakdown of the Malthouse handover/nurturing, we have seen a lack of support given to Buckley, including the succession of department heads giving a lack of continuity.
I also think the boys club mentality exists, putting lovely blokes like Lockyer and Rocca into highly specilised developmental roles, and perhaps overlooking more experienced offerings from outside.
If the bloke is to get a contract extension, also provide him the support to get the job done. If he stays, a serious cleanup of the assistants is absolutely necessary. Thats my opinion.

I hear this argument all the time but who is to say he has not had good assistants. There have been quite a few in bucks tenure and they are the ones that get moved on. If you believe Ben Hart Bucks is not one to take much note of his assistants so does it really matter who they are? I reckon if you ask Craig Mcrae and Steve Grave they will agree with Hart. The assistants are not the common denominators.

 

[bucksisbest]

System, appears worst in the league and has been that way for a while (probably second worst while leppitsch was coach).

Hart , Lappin and Grace have been sacked and replaced, yet same issues continue on.

 

[HFF]

We keep mentioning and harping on about "high quality assistants"…

Yet we are overlooking the fact that our coach is inflexible in listening and changing and will only do things his way.
Therefore what difference does it make if we bring in people ?
He doesn't listen or want to listen.

 

[Justlokan]

I hear this argument all the time but who is to say he has not had good assistants. There have been quite a few in bucks tenure and they are the ones that get moved on. If you believe Ben Hart Bucks is not one to take much note of his assistants so does it really matter who they are? I reckon if you ask Craig Mcrae and Steve Grave they will agree with Hart. The assistants are not the common denominators.

without saying he is a victim, Bucks has suffered from not having a strong, continuous football manager who can confidently tell Bucks where he needs to improve.
Hart, McCrae and Grace might have a good point about Buck's inability to listen but if he'd had Geoff Walsh in place throughout his tenure, results may have been different. Injuries and bad recruiting play a role but the lack of system (or brand as King calls it) makes it easy to see how we've underachieved.

 

[TKiL]

Id strongly suggest high quality assistants need to be sought. Right from the breakdown of the Malthouse handover/nurturing, we have seen a lack of support given to Buckley, including the succession of department heads giving a lack of continuity.
I also think the boys club mentality exists, putting lovely blokes like Lockyer and Rocca into highly specilised developmental roles, and perhaps overlooking more experienced offerings from outside.
If the bloke is to get a contract extension, also provide him the support to get the job done. If he stays, a serious cleanup of the assistants is absolutely necessary. Thats my opinion.

1. It's primarily Buckley's job to assess the worth of his assistants and get the best available - no point in McGuire / acting CEO / Head of football getting new assistants if the dynamic in the coaches box resembles a medieval fiefdom - Harvey and Burns have been there a while - long time to be in a job if the head coach continues to ignore your input.

2. We sidelined Neil Balme so that factor in the succession of Dept. Heads sits squarely with Emperor Ed

3. Wonder what the selection process was for Lockyer & Rocca - latte with Emperor Ed? round of golf? cruise on the Yarra?

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

I find it hard to decide how much of not being able to kick and weigh up options falls under talent vs system. If it mostly comes down to talent then 7.5 is generous.

Crisp deciding to kick 15 m across opposition goals to a guy with 2 opposition players within 5 metres ........is that decision and inability to kick it straight 15m a lack of talent or is he so damn confused by the system that the talent is overwhelmed by doubt?

I really don't know at this point.

I tend to agree with the premise of the OP and think that (assuming nobody especially impressive is available as senior coach) Bucks could be the man to develop these guys if he gets (non-Collingwood) people around him who he respects and will listen to. It must drive him balmy watching the ball get massacred week after week when we are doing so well in other areas.

I hope the chequebook has been opened for Mr Hodge for starters.

 

[sr36]

How would we as a collective rate our club in those three areas? IMO, they are the three drivers of success in modern footy.

Adelaide have all three covered in spades with their amazing ball movement, talent on every line and they speak about Pyke as some sort of demi god. Brisbane have a fantastic system in place now under Fagan, but lack the talent to move out of the lower reaches of the ladder. Despite that we've seen a rapid turnaround in form over the past 12 weeks once they started to really buy in to his philosophy. Richmond probably lack the talent to be at the top end, but their 'guns n rookies' strategy is really working with the buy in they have of an improved system. Does it get any more talented than GWS? However until recently I would have questioned the buy in to the system. The system itself is strong yet they sometimes play like 22 individuals that just want to do their own thing.

I could continue like this for each club throughout the league because they're such great indicators of a teams quality. This brings me to my ratings of Collingwood.

Talent: I don't see us all that far behind Geelong and Richmond if not on par. All three have strengths and weaknesses, but in order to be as successful as the more talented teams the other areas need to be at a high level. 7.5/10.

Buy in: Outwardly it appears the playing group love the coach so who am I to argue with them. How else do you lose 11 games throughout a season by an average of only 19 points? It's also the white knight in Buckley's bid for a contract extension. 9/10.

System: Hmm what do you say about the Collingwood system that hasn't been said before? The answer is nothing. Anyone with a knowledge of the game has picked apart our issues over the past five years. Until it's sorted we'll continue to languish in the no mans land area of the ladder. 4/10.

I'm clearly of the view that there's enough talent there to not have been out of the finals race as early as we were, but I'm sure others will see it differently so what can be done to further nurture the talent we already have? What do people believe can be done to improve our system regardless of who's in charge moving forward? Is my POV even relevant to why we're currently so mediocre?

Totally agree with your ratings. I think our talent and endeavour should put us in the middle of the 8, but we're terribly coached.

 

[TKiL]

I find it hard to decide how much of not being able to kick and weigh up options falls under talent vs system. If it mostly comes down to talent then 7.5 is generous.

Crisp deciding to kick 15 m across opposition goals to a guy with 2 opposition players within 5 metres ........is that decision and inability to kick it straight 15m a lack of talent or is he so damn confused by the system that the talent is overwhelmed by doubt?

I really don't know at this point.

I tend to agree with the premise of the OP and think that (assuming nobody especially impressive is available as senior coach) Bucks could be the man to develop these guys if he gets people around him who he respects and will listen to. It must drive him balmy watching the ball get massacred week after week when we are doing so well in other areas.

I hope the chequebook has been opened for Mr Hodge for starters.

I have thought player confusion has been a problem for quite some time

 

[Bad Horse]

I think the talent rating is a bit lower than that but otherwise agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Jasper84]

Issues with the system go beyond just the on field stuff. Sydney for example have a backline that bar 1 or 2 players, comprises entirely of rookie selections, who are all above AFL standard players. They make good use of all of their draft picks from F/S to rookie draft. Similar story with Adelaide, who have utilised cat b rookie listings to get Keath and Greenwood.

We however, find ourselves making compromised selections to satisfy external reasons. As I mentioned in another thread, we used a second round pick last year on a player who is surplus to our needs, because he is the son of a club champion. We kept players on our list for two years knowing that they were banned from playing. We continue to retain an underperforming player, who is clearly a poor influence on others, for reasons known only to insiders. How can you foster a relentless winning mentality when a system of subversion compromises the team every week?

 

[Woods List Clogger]

without saying he is a victim, Bucks has suffered from not having a strong, continuous football manager who can confidently tell Bucks where he needs to improve.
Hart, McCrae and Grace might have a good point about Buck's inability to listen but if he'd had Geoff Walsh in place throughout his tenure, results may have been different. Injuries and bad recruiting play a role but the lack of system (or brand as King calls it) makes it easy to see how we've underachieved.

Perhaps the high turnover of football managers is because like his assistant coaches,Buckley when told how to improve wont listen to them.Perhaps they get frustrated and move on.Surely the question has to be asked why cant football managers work with Buckley.

 

[barrackers]

Good break down

Talent - individually medium to high, as a collective balanced group medium

It's there, but we're unbalanced. Too many grunt players, too many with questionable skills (although we improved that over the last off season) and not enough key position depth and quality key position depth. Re-balance our list with some quality talls, a couple of quick line breakers and an A grade small defender and we'd rank high across the board.
​

System - low, at times medium

At times our game plan works, at other times we look confused and like we don't have one. The other issue I have is that our game plan doesn't always suit the way we've balanced our list. For a side with a lot of grunt mids at times we can get beaten badly in the stoppages suggesting our centre square and stoppage structures are poor. Although used successfully against the swans the high possession game also doesn't suit our poorer ball users.

Even now the key to Hawthorn's success is that players come into the side and know what role they're required to play. This increases the impact and value of the middle tier of players and for mine is a big factor between not making finals and seriously contending for a flag. Coaching is obviously a big part in this including recognising and using the players' individual strengths, but so too is player development and talent identification.
​

Buy in - high

The group are clearly playing for Buckley, which has become more evident once our backs hit the wall.​

 

[Scodog10]

We keep mentioning and harping on about "high quality assistants"…

Yet we are overlooking the fact that our coach is inflexible in listening and changing and will only do things his way.
Therefore what difference does it make if we bring in people ?
He doesn't listen or want to listen.

I'd be asking a similar question of whether fresh personalities in support will change the direction of the FD? My answer is probably not unless there's a shift in the overall personality of the FD. Right now I'd say we're a introverted football club on field and I'm not sure a revolving door of underlings will fix that. Much the same as a shuffling of player personnel will have a limited impact on results, IMO.

If I'm wrong and that sort of change will be the panacea then happy days, but I personally haven't seen enough to indicate that it will change much of anything.

Issues with the system go beyond just the on field stuff. Sydney for example have a backline that bar 1 or 2 players, comprises entirely of rookie selections, who are all above AFL standard players. They make good use of all of their draft picks from F/S to rookie draft. Similar story with Adelaide, who have utilised cat b rookie listings to get Keath and Greenwood.

We however, find ourselves making compromised selections to satisfy external reasons. As I mentioned in another thread, we used a second round pick last year on a player who is surplus to our needs, because he is the son of a club champion. We kept players on our list for two years knowing that they were banned from playing. We continue to retain an underperforming player, who is clearly a poor influence on others, for reasons known only to insiders. How can you foster a relentless winning mentality when a system of subversion compromises the team every week?

This is one that irks me as well. I like Cal Brown and what he offers in general, but at Collingwood he's a square peg in a round hole. Being hamstrung by off field politics really does inhibit ones ability to achieve a relentless pursuit of excellence.

The other area that I find challenging is the high performance group. I've been an advocate of moving away from the current regime for three years. We're largely undersized, struggle rehabbing players and have a horrendous record with injuries in controlled environments. The problem is if we make a change for 2018 any new HP head will face similar problems at least initially because they'll need to undo the poor work of their predecessors which will inevitably result in more injuries and more complaints from fans.

Unfortunately, IMO, as a club we don't hold our heads of department accountable enough with all positions vacated voluntarily (Butters, Walsh, Eade, Balme and MM) or due to extenuating circumstances (Gubby) over the past decade except Pert who walked before he was pushed. We love stability, but it's proving to be more inhibitory than productive currently. Our board needs to step up to the plate and be firm with our direction one way for the other for 2018.

 

[HFF]

without saying he is a victim, Bucks has suffered from not having a strong, continuous football manager who can confidently tell Bucks where he needs to improve.
Hart, McCrae and Grace might have a good point about Buck's inability to listen but if he'd had Geoff Walsh in place throughout his tenure, results may have been different. Injuries and bad recruiting play a role but the lack of system (or brand as King calls it) makes it easy to see how we've underachieved.

This is really clutching at straws.

It has the mentality of shifting blame to everyone except the coach.

if anything all it has proved is Nathan's inability to work with people.

 

[Countrypie]

I find it hard to decide how much of not being able to kick and weigh up options falls under talent vs system. If it mostly comes down to talent then 7.5 is generous.

Crisp deciding to kick 15 m across opposition goals to a guy with 2 opposition players within 5 metres ........is that decision and inability to kick it straight 15m a lack of talent or is he so damn confused by the system that the talent is overwhelmed by doubt?

I really don't know at this point.
.

Crisp never gives first option. NEVER. If that was team wide it's system. If it's individual it's talent. In Crisps case, much and all as I love him he wouldn;t get a game in any of the top 8 sides.
personally I'd rate the group's talent as 6.5 and system as 5 ish. If teh system was working at optimum level we'd play finals. It isn;t. when it breakls down it looks non existent. WHen it's purring along it looks good. DO we have the talent to consistently deliver any system? Chicken and egg.
Go through our team, get past the first 6-10 and then ask do any of these players warrant a spot at Port - a team who are going to finsh 5-8? My answer is a few if any.

 

[Maggie5]

The other area that I find challenging is the high performance group. I've been an advocate of moving away from the current regime for three years. We're largely undersized, struggle rehabbing players and have a horrendous record with injuries in controlled environments. The problem is if we make a change for 2018 any new HP head will face similar problems at least initially because they'll need to undo the poor work of their predecessors which will inevitably result in more injuries and more complaints from fans.

This has been a bug bear of min ever since we had all those injuries and slow recovery.

More importantly I think our players are the wrong body shape.

Sick of half tackles, kicking, getting pushed off the ball, marking contests (body on body) just to name a few.

 

[Roverjg]

There has not many teams in the comp that have been smashed week in week out. While I have not seen the stats I don't remember a season where there have been so many close games. I would not be surprised if the average margin this year is the smallest on record. I think it is more a case of the top sides falling off.

Winning Margins of the games this year
Draw - 3
1-6 points - 26
7-12 points - 15
13-18 points - 24
19-24 points - 21
25-30 points - 17
31-36 points - 13
37-42 points - 16
43-48 points - 7
49+ points - 38

 

[swiftdog]

How would we as a collective rate our club in those three areas? IMO, they are the three drivers of success in modern footy.

Adelaide have all three covered in spades with their amazing ball movement, talent on every line and they speak about Pyke as some sort of demi god. Brisbane have a fantastic system in place now under Fagan, but lack the talent to move out of the lower reaches of the ladder. Despite that we've seen a rapid turnaround in form over the past 12 weeks once they started to really buy in to his philosophy. Richmond probably lack the talent to be at the top end, but their 'guns n rookies' strategy is really working with the buy in they have of an improved system. Does it get any more talented than GWS? However until recently I would have questioned the buy in to the system. The system itself is strong yet they sometimes play like 22 individuals that just want to do their own thing.

I could continue like this for each club throughout the league because they're such great indicators of a teams quality. This brings me to my ratings of Collingwood.

Talent: I don't see us all that far behind Geelong and Richmond if not on par. All three have strengths and weaknesses, but in order to be as successful as the more talented teams the other areas need to be at a high level. 7.5/10.

Buy in: Outwardly it appears the playing group love the coach so who am I to argue with them. How else do you lose 11 games throughout a season by an average of only 19 points? It's also the white knight in Buckley's bid for a contract extension. 9/10.

System: Hmm what do you say about the Collingwood system that hasn't been said before? The answer is nothing. Anyone with a knowledge of the game has picked apart our issues over the past five years. Until it's sorted we'll continue to languish in the no mans land area of the ladder. 4/10.

I'm clearly of the view that there's enough talent there to not have been out of the finals race as early as we were, but I'm sure others will see it differently so what can be done to further nurture the talent we already have? What do people believe can be done to improve our system regardless of who's in charge moving forward? Is my POV even relevant to why we're currently so mediocre?

Nice post. I certainly agree with the buy-in side of things but would rate talent lower and system a little higher. Talent's a hard one to gauge, maybe on raw talent it's a 7.5 but I'd argue that it's not evenly spread across the field which lowers it and as a team we make too many basic skill errors which lowers it. We seem to lack composure at times also (more on this later) which I argue fits into the talent category rather than any of the other too (I think some people view it under the system category). As for the system, I think the system as a whole, not necessarily the style of play, can be classified as high-risk high-reward. I think the Adelaide (and maybe Melbourne too) game sums it up perfectly. When on, the system and press can choke and crush teams (the high reward side of things). On the flip-side though (aka high-risk), when that zone/press gets found out it does tend to result in leaking goals like a sieve.

As for why we were out of the finals race as early as we were, I think we need to go right back to the start of the season. I think the five key losses to our season were the Bulldogs, Richmond, St.Kilda, GWS then Melbourne. I think we subjectively played well for most or parts of these games. We lacked composure against the Dogs (particularly around goals) but had our chances. Built an ok lead against Richmond but again, didn't make the most of the ascendancy. Were well on top in the first quarter against St.Kilda (2.6 to 1.3 from memory) but went into quarter time with a 9 point lead instead of a 3-4 goal lead, might have been enough in a low scoring game (certainly outplayed after quarter time though). I didn't see the start of the GWS game or most of their comeback but from what I did see somewhat unlucky to get done in the last 30 seconds, a lack of composure to close out a close game. I think the system was found out in the second half against Melbourne but again, only done by 4 points (let's not mention the umpiring). I think these losses were important because it meant we went behind the 8-ball early in the season and it means we didn't have a buffer to protect against when we inevitably played poorly (the patch after the bye as it turned out). Not saying we needed to win all these games but close out even 2 of 5 and we're still in with a fighting chance for finals now.

It's probably why I'm more bullish than most about 2018. I don't think we're all that far away from finals and it's more a matter of tweaking things (list and gameplan) rather than wholesale changes.

 

[doppleganger]

Richmond are an example of why players who can apply defensive pressure across the forward line are so valuable.

Butler, Castagna and Rioli they are 10 touch 1 goal per game players. Defensive pressure they apply is critical and they set the tone. Collingwood don't have any players up forward who do this, apart from Blair.

Down back they also have continuity - Rance, Astbury, Grimes and B.Ellis - all played 20 games this year.

We aren't far off, we made transition a focus this year after struggling in 2016. We jumped from below par - 12th for inside 50s and 13th for marks inside 50 in 2016 to 4th and 5th this year.

We need to clean up our ball use across HB, too many crazy unforced clangers, and get more pressure from our small forwards to lock the ball in our forward half better.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Interesting discussion.

Talent wise 6/10.
I'd say we bat very deep but in the medium space.
If a few of our young ones develop up the food chain we may go up to 7 or 8.

We are 6 now.

Buy in?

9/10 can't recall a better year since Hafey. Players look on board. We don't get slaughtered so that's a positive this year.

Structure?
5 or 6 out of 10.
Simply have better players the structure will be better.

Lack of forward big types, kills us.

Accuracy or lack thereof has killed our season.

As an aside wish we had Wells 5 years ago, his elite talents when we get it is a clear demonstration of what good skills brings to the table.

 

[Apex36]

We keep mentioning and harping on about "high quality assistants"…

Yet we are overlooking the fact that our coach is inflexible in listening and changing and will only do things his way.
Therefore what difference does it make if we bring in people ?
He doesn't listen or want to listen.

This is the crux of it for mine. Ex assistant's have been highly critical of Buckley's inflexibility and coaching style. Grace was scathing on Buckley's style after his exit and Hart from memory said on Adelaide radio recently that Buckley was completely inflexible on the style of footy he wanted his players to play, and even if the assistants had good ideas that could potentially improve performances he would rarely if ever take those suggestions on board.

I'm not convinced a clean out of assistants will change anything if the head coach is incapable of changing himself.

 

[doodles98]

There are a bunch of peripheral issues that don't fit in your system, buy-in and talent equation. They are also essential to any successful side. Some of these, for example, are Leadership, physical conditioning, team balance and the intangible of team culture/ dynamics. We have buy in in terms of effort but the disjointed, incohesive, inconsistent nature of our play suggests to me that the team culture and dynamic leaves slot to be desired. We certainly do not project a united clear brand of football like say Sydney or Adelaide do and like we did 2010-11. We do not gel as a team and frankly we no longer "believe" as a team. This is what a good football culture means.... Not being good citizens and passing all the drug tests...