Notes from the game: 2014 Round 2 Sydney

Against the odds and all expectations, Collingwood grinds out a hard-fought win.

A meditation

As we sat down to watch the game, it was interesting to consider why one is a supporter. I suppose having shelled out substantial quantities of my not-so-hard-earned, I'm reluctant to let it go to waste. So why watch a game in Sydney? That hasn't cost me anything. I guess one has to maintain the habit, else one might lose interest in attending matches.

Also, quite possibly, for the dedicated follower of football, it's beyond control. Might as well face it, you're addicted to ... the game.

And, of course, there are those occasional days, where you go in, expecting the worst but hoping for something better. At half time, I said to Mark, "Well, we're playing better than the previous game." Thus small positives are found in even the most pessimistic frames of mind.

The game

Well, it was a scrappy affair - by both sides, but I never take comfort in the performance of the opposition; I focus on my team. From the opening bounce, the Collingwood players looked switched on. I know they looked like that in the first quarter of the Freo game, so perhaps my appreciation was premature. In the event, Collingwood kept up the intensity to the very end.

So we had intensity and desire, but, on many occasions, the performance was something else. We fumbled. Time and again Collingwood players missed targets by hand. Several times, their decisions were poor. They turned into trouble; they short-passed to contests. Perhaps the greasy conditions contributed. It's easy to say. But then how does one account for the scintillating moments?

On several occasions, including set kicks, the ball came off the boot almost sideways (both teams). In contrast, there were some excellent passes: Dwyer to Swan (might have been luck); Dwyer to Goldsack; Pendlebury's kick out of the air to Elliott.

Several times players of both persuasions kicked into the man on the mark.

With Collingwood's intensity came lots of pressure on the ball-carrier and lots of tackles. Many of the tackles were not just good, they were outstanding. Even when both teams tired in the last quarter, Collingwood continued to run and chase and harass and run down and tackle. Pendlebury started with few possessions, but the mark of a good player, and the mark of a good team, is how each behaves when not in possession of the ball. For this, Collingwood gets a big tick from me.

Further, by and large Collingwood maintained its structure all night. Players were usually in the right place, trying to do the right thing. Well, that's how I saw it; Buckley may disagree; I don't know.

Collingwood had better entries into F50 after quarter time. In stark contrast to last round, we won each of the last three quarters.

Players

Frost did an outstanding job on Buddy. Franklin kicked 2.1 and had a fair bit of the ball, one of his goals was nearly from the wing, but I suspect if Buckley had been offered that at the start of the game, he would have thought he'd swindled his bookie.

Elliott was very good and contributed 3 goals.

Pendlebury started quietly but came good with Collingwood (7.12 to 3.7) in the second half. His play, run and goal was brilliant.

Reid had a pretty good game. Unfortunately, it was the wrong Reid playing for the wrong team. I think after quarter time, Brown did all right on him.

Swan was down in all the usual parameters he would value. Grundy was mobile and athletic - and hungry for the contest. His kick from the centre found Goldsack for a goal. H was superb (9 marks). Cloke had a good night (9 marks, 2 goals) despite some errors like missing a pudding and an easy set shot. Sinclair (7 marks, 1 goal) was outstanding. Maxwell was back to his see-ball-punch-ball best in defence. Welcome back, Toovey. Blair had a bit of it.

Did I mention Frost?

I've probably (unfairly) overlooked some players. I think it was a good team performance.

And also

Watching the first time, I wondered about the value of Jesse White, but during the replay he improved considerably.

It made me wonder about ROI (return on investment) of 3 players: White, Clinton Young and Buddy.

I'll take the easy one first: on last night's performance, in terms of winning and losing, Buddy was overpaid. His goal from downtown might make some think his value in marketing terms was excellent. I guess if that goal is replayed in Sydney, they are right.

To this observer, Young still has a lot to prove. Some of his passes are sublime; but I can only remember two or three from last night. And it seems he's a thrill seeker: one great pass coming out of defence was inches away from interception before landing in (our) Grundy's arms. His kick-in after a Sydney behind resulted in a goal at the other end. But he also coughs it up a lot. In the field of play, heading forward, that is merely demoralising; out of defence, when Jetta spoilt Adams, it resulted in a goal to Sydney. He kicked a nice goal but sprayed another shot.

Trivia

Several players (Jesse White) and most of the Fox commentators seem to have trouble understanding at least one rule. In the fourth quarter, after a Collingwood behind, the Sydney player kicked the ball which went out where the 50M arc hits the boundary; no player had touched it. That's deemed (the equivalent of) out of bounds on the full. A player from the opposition team (in this case White of Collingwood) gets a free from outside the field of play. If he chooses not to kick from outside the field of play, once he steps in (even by a toe nail), it's play on. If, after the umpire calls play on, he steps back outside the field of play, that's a regular out of bounds which results in a throw in.

It's not rocket science. yet week in, week out, we see players who don't understand this. What are the coaches doing?

References: http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5771