Analysis The 2017 Collingwood game plan.

[THATSGOLD]

He said players, not player.

Well they had a few number picks to go with him. Shows how you can fail very easily.

 

[Pie eyed]

Well folks we are about to embark on a another season of football under the ruler Mr Nathan Buckley. What can we expect to see in 17 and how do you think we should play to keep up with the rest of the pack?
What are our strengths? How can we use them to the best of our ability?
What sort of footy can we expect to see?

It will be shit no matter what you see.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

What do people think after tonight?

It appears (to me) we are playing a Hawks style game i.e. chipping it around until we see an opening and then we attack.

Interested in thoughts.

 

[PIrOed]

I agree with what you say about Geelong
BUT Pendleburys goal is allowed was a goal we win that first game. We actually try in round 23 the result of 2011 might've been different althogher. I do agree Geelong found a way to negate our game plan but it wasn't dead in the water. We were still the best and the bench mark in 2011 and should've been in 2012.
In saying all that could the game plan had gone on for longer we would have been a strong team for many years. Geelong showed they could be a strong team for a lot longer than us.
In saying all that it's time Buckley who basically stopped that game plan came up with something better than he has because it's gone backwards since we changed it. We are still waiting for him to show us what he can do with the game plan as coach.

I never said it was dead in the water, only that it needed to be tweaked. In particular the transition from back to forward. In my opinion that is all Buckley has done. The problem is he has tried to implement a transition style that relies on precision kicking when he hasn't had the players to implement it and the list management hasn't worked to address that until the offseason just passed. Now you can argue this approach was wrong but I would counter that as senior coach Buckley has the right to do what he deems best and that the theory behind what he is doing is sound but that it was simply poorly executed by the club as a whole.

Now if talking hypotheticals and the coach in 2012 decided to pull another lever there were other options. For example if looking to utilise what was available at the time, that backline contained players such as Shaw, Johnson, Maxwell, Toovey and Lumumba. None of those players were particularly incisive kicks but all were willing to run and carry to varying extents. Therefore instead of looking to attack the corridor by foot a coach could have looked to run the ball at the centre corridor then move to the boundary. This would have forced a team like Geelong to first defend the centre while leaving players boundary side as they couldn't be sure which side the ball would be moved to when the run was halted.

 

[PIrOed]

Your last paragraph deserves a separate thread on drafting. I think you'll find with most AFL clubs that the list manager is overseen in all drafting decisions by the senior coach. So the senior coach will stipulate a set of criteria of particulars that he needs and the list manager will go away and choose between player A, or player B, both of who meet that criteria. I'm assuming that the early drafting decisions to recruit Lynch, Young, Russell and Armstrong rested with Buckley, so any blame for that resides with Buckley. Likewise the decision to let several senior players leave resided with Buckley, who surely would have known that in the short term it would harm our performances. I think the last part of what you say is correct. Gubby Allan was given unusual authority by Eddie to shake the place up to give Buckley every chance of having a successful 2017.

When it comes to recruitment I hope what you say is correct and that the coach gives directives in terms of what types of players they want added to the list and the recruitment team then goes and tries to find them. But in general my opinion is that is as far as a coaches authority should extend on recruiting decisions. A coach may have the power to veto the recruitment of a player they don't think fits what they are trying to build, but decisions on which players are targeted, those should always rest with the specialist talent spotters. If Buckley said I want some experienced players for these positions and what he got was Lynch, Young, Russell and Armstrong, then I'm okay with that. If however he said I want Lynch, Young, Russell and Armstrong, and the club went out and got them, then heads need to roll in senior management at the club as it indicates a concerning lack of separation in powers. A lack of which can lead to a Hird/Essendon style scenario.

 

[THATSGOLD]

What do people think after tonight?

It appears (to me) we are playing a Hawks style game i.e. chipping it around until we see an opening and then we attack.

Interested in thoughts.

Well that would be a good way to go about it.

 

[PIrOed]

What do people think after tonight?

It appears (to me) we are playing a Hawks style game i.e. chipping it around until we see an opening and then we attack.

Interested in thoughts.

I think you're right but I believe they have been trying do something similiar the last couple of years. I wasn't at the game and only saw parts of the second half but I'm more concerned about the defensive structures through the middle more than anything else.

Just like last year the opposition was able to switch play and find far too much space on the other wing. Since I wasn't at the ground I'm assuming things aren't much different to last year and when the opposition has the ball or there is a stoppage along the boundary all the Collingwood players are on that side of the ground. Unfortunately when the ball is moved to the opposite side opposition teams are finding space and the team lacks the speed to close it down. I'd like to see even just one player left out on the empty wing at all times to at least slow down the opposition when they try to switch play and allow their team mates time to close down the space. A bonus would be that on a turnover that player would have plenty of space to play with if the ball can get to them.