Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final West Coast Eagles 6.5 9.7 15.10 19.12 126 Collingwood Magpies 2.1 7.2 8.4 10.6 66
The Pies didn't arrive at Subiaco (or Patersons Stadium) until quarter time. Perhaps the cunning Eagles confused them by changing the name of the ground. Collingwood won the second quarter, decided it had done enough and took an early plane home. The Footy Bogan took a leaf out of the Magpies' book and turned off half way through the last quarter (far too late). It was bad enough watching the train wreck the first time. He's certainly not going to subject himself to a repeat - especially since there are tastier morsels on offer.
The first conclusion to be drawn is that it is difficult to gauge West Coast's performance since it had no opposition for most of the game (at least 75%).
Before the game
The Footy Bogan's reasons for living are currently both overseas. Consequently he has more disposable time than usual.
The Bogan spent the first part of his life as a student. He could never engage in any frivolous pastime without the nagging guilt that he ought to be studying. This didn't change his behaviour; he merely learnt to cope with guilt.
Although those days are long gone, they cast a long shadow. These days chores replace studying. However, The Footy Bogan also believes in a work-life balance (perhaps better described as a chore-play balance). So, for example, loading the washing machine, an activity that might take as long as 10 minutes, is rewarded by an allowance of 30-60 minutes of pleasurable time.
There's only so much solitaire a man can play. And, of course, with the approach of spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. The Bogan, on the other hand, having seen that door close decades ago, turns his fancy to replays.
In the past week, The Footy Bogan has watched 3 matches from 2011 (Collingwood's best year by the length of the straight). He started near the beginning by watching the NAB Cup grand final against Essendon. He then decided to watch a variant of When Last They Met: the 2011 round 10 match against the Eagles. Finally he watched the first round match against Port Adelaide.
Check out these scores:
Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Essendon 0.3.0 0.6.0 0.12.6 0.13.8 86 Collingwood 0.3.4 0.7.6 1.11.7 1.15.9 108
Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Collingwood Magpies 4.4 7.5 11.8 16.9 105 West Coast Eagles 1.3 2.8 4.10 7.11 53
Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Collingwood Magpies 6.1 13.3 18.6 24.11 155 Port Adelaide Power 3.1 5.6 11.6 12.8 80
Don't they make you drool?
And the play! Delightful! Worth watching!
The game
Reluctantly turning my attention back to the weekend's game, I note that there were two plays that pretty much epitomise Collingwood at the moment.
The first play came towards the end of the first half. Steele Sidebottom took possession of the ball near the wing, bounced 4 times and kicked the last goal of the half. As an individual piece of play, it reflected well on Sidebottom. But not on Collingwood.
It stands in stark contrast to almost every goal scored by Collingwood in the 3 games from 2011. Every goal came from team play. If there was individual brilliance - and with Krakouer on the team of course there was - it related to finish, not to process. Well, all right, against Port, Krakouer had a "candy" moment. He takes a mark just outside 50. I'd like to think he assessed his options. He then seems to play on towards the right and two Port opponents, tries to sell some candy, heads left, fumbles the ball, picks it up again, is challenged by a third opponent, shows him the ball then heads even further left (now heading across the ground), takes a step or two turning partly towards the goals and kicks with the outside of the boot from about 35. An absolute gem. (Look up "Andrew Krakouer" on Youtube.)
The process was amazing. Swift, slick ball movement by hand and foot. A good understanding between players of where another player will be and what the ball carrier's options are. Players leading to the ball carrier; players running past the ball carrier to receive. An economy of effort. Everything this year's team isn't.
Everyone's a contributor, and the list is long. The stars are obvious; it's the way that the non-stars are drawn up to greatness: Benny Johnson, Simon Buckley! Dawes, McCarthy! Wellingham. All gone now.
I could go on. Here's the team from the NAB Cup premiership team.
COLLINGWOOD
B: Harry O'Brien, Chris Tarrant, Alan Toovey
HB: Brent Macaffer, Ben Reid, Heath Shaw
C: John McCarthy, Dane Swan, Sharrod Wellingham
HF: Andrew Krakouer, Chris Dawes, Luke Ball
F: Alan Didak, Travis Cloke, Leigh Brown
FOLL: Darren Jolly, Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas
I/C: Leon Davis, Lachlan Keeffe, Cameron Wood, Jarryd Blair,
Simon Buckley, Steele Sidebottom, Dayne Beams, Ben Johnson
Em: Ben Sinclair, Tyson Goldsack, Tom Young
Lick your chops over that.
The other play happened in the third quarter. A West Coast player comes running out of the centre. Frost and Kennedy are alone in WC's F50. Frost ran away from Kennedy towards the ball carrier who kicked over the top. Kennedy walked into the goal square and nudged the ball over by foot.
What do the two plays have in common?
First, let me say that Frost's play was an error of judgement which was mentioned by the commentator (Dermie?). It would have been harder for the West Coast player to score from 40 than it turned out for Kennedy.
What the plays have in common is that they epitomise the Collingwood malaise. They aren't playing as a team. They're a rabble. No one knows what his role is and no one trusts anyone else. Consequently, everyone tries to do too much - in stark contrast to the 2011 model.
Yes, Sidebottom kicked the goal, but it was a trifle flukey and I think it was on his left foot. In 2011, he would never have needed to do so much.
Frost had an opponent and a job to do. I grant you that he's still green and looks very promising. I'm not having a go at Frost; rather at the team's preparation - in other words the coaches. My suspicion is that Collingwood would never have been caught in that dilemma in 2011. But, had it been, I think the Collingwood defender could have relied on a team mate to run the ball carrier down. In leaving his man, Frost was attempting to do someone else's job.
Transitions
Can't complain about the list management: there isn't any.
Consider Hawthorn in the 80s (4 premierships, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989 - and don't forget 1991), Hawthorn and Geelong since 2007.
I'll talk about Geelong because I think I know more about them, but I believe a similar analysis applies to both Hawthorns.
Since winning the 2007 premiership, Geelong has culled one outstanding player after another. Some retired (Cameron Mooney, Matthew Scarlett), some were delisted (Paul Chapman), some chose greener pastures (Gary Ablett). But it was done in a controlled and managed way. From 2007, it has finished 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 6, 3. At the end of 2010, it lost Gary Ablett and coach Mark Thompson, yet still made the grand final (and beat Collingwood in its best year in my memory).
The new coach, as far as I can tell, felt no great urge to wipe out the legacy of his predecessor (partly because Thompson left on good terms and was not pushed). If it ain't broke, don't mess with it. The Cats kept playing the same sort of footy they had been playing since 2007 and won a premiership. They've had a couple of (relatively) lean years but I could name 8 teams who would kill for their record of the last 3 years. This year they are third; they probably won't make the grand final, but I'd change our position for theirs in a heartbeat. And for their future.
This is what happens when a team has top-class management. It makes wise decisions.
Compare this with Collingwood. For dysfunctional reasons, Eddie decided that he wanted Buckley to coach Collingwood. The infatuation some teams have with their golden-haired boys is quite baffling. Voss has come and gone. Hird - what can I say about Hird? - has special problems (still being played out). If you want a recipe for a coach, try this: pick a player from Hawthorn's premiership teams of the 80s. Don't pick your love-child.
Now Buckley may yet turn out to be the best coach that ever lived. he may deliver Collingwood 5 premierships in the next 10 years. He may end up the longest-serving, most decorated coach of all time.
I don't think the stars are in his favour. Collingwood just missed out in 2011. In my opinion, the problems towards the end of the year were not Malthouse's fault. Thomas getting reported twice during the year seemed to be all his own work. And the screw-up by Shaw and Maxwell (?) could hardly be blamed on Malthouse. So Malthouse left Buckley a premiership-capable team and a proven game plan.
You could understand a bit of tweaking. You could understand a slight adjustment to the playing list. But what did we get? In 2013, Collingwood finished 6th at the end of the home and away season. It was eliminated by Port Adelaide in its only final appearance. In 2014, after discarding Jolly, Krakouer, Didak, Thomas, Wellingham (probably others) it looks like missing out on the finals for the first time since it picked up Pendlebury (2005). Might that have happened under Malthouse? Of course. But Collingwood's best 22, when fully fit, were as good at the end of 2011 as they were at the beginning; Collingwood was simply unable to field its best team.
I've just read my reports from 2011. Perhaps that last sentence wasn't quite correct.
Finally, looking at clips of Buckley from his post-match press conference, I got the feeling that he and the team are not on the best of terms.
The wrap
The sad fact is that Collingwood doesn't play like a team.
Further, because list management has been bungled, there's no hope in sight this year or next. The commentators said 2016 or 2017.
Time to follow another sport for a while. There'll be nothing to see here for several years.
Dear Mr TFB
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t bear to watch the entire match.
I knew we were in deep doo-doo when the cameras were on David King interviewing Buckley as the match was about to begin. King asked him how they were going to play against all the Eagle talls – Buckley couldn’t string a cogent sentence together. The camera occasionally went to our coach’s box in the first quarter – they were all stony faced.
Then the free kick count early in the second quarter was 12 to 4 (not our way). How can that be?
I had watched the reserves on TV the day before and that was really enlightening. The player with the most potential (in my mind) went down with a mayor hammy tear 3 minutes before the end of the game. I expect he will return in 2016. I expect we will have quite a good team on the park in 2016.
You should stop looking at games that are three years old (which equates to a lifetime in tactical terms). The game has moved far, far forwards.
This is where you make your rosy glassed errors.
I shall explain – at the end of a season, the coaches look to see who will be as good or better in the September of the following year. If they aren’t going to be as good, you have to have a pretty good reason not to move them on. Look at the players you name and tell me how many were better the year after they were moved on (or how many you thought would be better).
The recruiters look to see what holes are in the team and try to pick up the best available, the cheapest, the most likely to improve in the following two (or so) years.
The two streams don’t necessarily coincide.
Thirdly, the coaches and fitness staff have to be absolutely at the forefront of tactics.
I thought that man for man on Sunday, compared to their direct opponents, just about all of our players were less experienced, shorter, slower, less trained, tactically bereft and less muscled. The same mistakes, week in and week out.
The style of football now is so dangerous in terms of injury that it is possible a team could lose a huge swag of players in any given week. It is quite understandable therefore that very young players are not going to finish the season well.
Floreat Pica
M
ReplyDeleteThe style of football now is so dangerous in terms of injury that it is possible a team could lose a huge swag of players in any given week.
Remarkably prophetic, Michael!