In my previous post I rated most of the players individually. That post grew far too long, so I have used this post to round out the discussion; to examine how those individuals, together with players who have yet to make an appearance in 2015, might coalesce to form a united and potent team.
Synergy
Synergy is that magic quality that takes one and one and produces a result that is greater than two. The more the result exceeds two, the greater the synergy. Collingwood had heaps in 2010 on its path to a premiership. Unsurprisingly, it had even more in 2011: on top of the synergy of the previous year, it now had the extra synergy a team accrues by virtue of having won the major prize, of being the reigning premiers.
By the same token, synergy tends to dissipate when established players leave (for whatever reason) and new, often younger, players fill the holes - without immediately expanding the whole. A contributor to synergy is each player's familiarity with each other player, his stability, his style, how he plays, what he prefers, which side of his body he favours and a host of other details. It grows with each successful play, each small onfield victory, each game won. (Sometimes it grows out of a loss - if properly examined and interpreted.)
Where is Collingwood on the synergy clock? With at least 17 players who have been with the senior team less than 18 months, I'd estimate that Collingwood's synergy clock is at about 6. The analogy is to the premiership clock; received wisdom suggests that a team is in best position to win a premiership when its clock is between 11 and 1.
Of course, there's a certain element of nonsense or voodoo in this analysis. Take for example "form". What does it mean? We say a player is in good form. It is useful for a historical perspective. Does it help in our understanding of the prospective? Cloke has kicked 12 goals in the last two games. Does that increase his odds of kicking 5 or more on his next outing? Or does it bring him one game closer to his next failure? Or both?
It could be seen as the penalty for playing with an oval ball - but cricket is susceptible to the same analysis.
Offense
With 119 points against GWS, one could be tempted to say that our forward line is in fine shape. In four of our games this year, we have kicked fewer than 100 points. We lost two of them. Only once, against the Tigers, we kicked 100 points (exactly, as it happens) and lost. We beat the Bombers 69-49. I thought it was magnificent at the time. Now, I'm not so sure.
White is part of the problem. Except for a couple of games, he's not playing the part required of him; he's not acting as a replacement for Dawes. And no one is replacing Leigh Brown as a third big forward. For a while, Goldsack might have played a role up front. But with the loss of Keeffe to a potential drug issue and Reid to injury, every able body has been directed to defence. Sometimes Witts and Grundy share forward and ruck duties.
But the forward line has an unhealthy reliance on Cloke.
On the other hand, our stock of quality small forwards overflows. Further, our midfielders have hit the scoreboard frequently.
An analysis of the goals kicked this year suggests that I might have been unfair to White and Blair:
Cloke 31 17
Elliot 25 8
White 18 13
Blair 12 3
Swan 11 7
Crisp 10 6
Fasolo 9 4
Pendlebury 9 3
I'd rate the offense as still a work in progress.
Defence
On paper, our defence is in tatters. We have not replaced Tarrant; we've lost Keeffe as mentioned earlier and Reid has yet to play this year. We used to have such an embarrassment of riches, we would routinely send Reid and/or Tarrant forward. Now we are left with 2 tall defenders. We are very vulnerable if we lose one.
That said, our defence has actually stood up remarkably well. In only two of our losses, the opposition scored 3 figures (Cats, 100; Tigers, 105). We average 101 points, our opponents, 77. The defensive unit shows considerable synergy.
Effective but vulnerable.
Midfield
Our offense has kicked 83 goals (as might be expected), maybe more; the midfield has added perhaps 50. (It's hard to determine where, say, Varcoe was playing when he kicked his 6.) In any case, many forwards play high (Elliot has been seen all over the field), roles are more fluid. Clearly, the midfield has been a strong contributor to our scoring.
It's hard to say whether this is good or bad; or how it compares with other teams. It's certainly bad when our only game plan is to kick it to Cloke with 2 or 3 players hanging off him. It's pretty impressive when the tall forwards either get out of the way, taking their opponents with them and opening up the forward line; or make a contest and bring the ball to ground for our crumbers. Usually, the coach will consider a wide spread of scorers as a plus.
Compared to our glory days when we rotated at least Pendlebury, Swan, Beams, Ball, Blair, Sidebottom, Dale Thomas, Wellingham and others through the midfield, we have some ground to make up. Nevertheless, we might make a reasonable midfield out of some or all of Pendlebury, Swan, Greenwood, Crisp, Blair, Elliot (in short bursts), Fasolo, eventually perhaps Adams, de Goey, Williams.
Ok with potential upside.
Rucks
The most valuable ruckmen have an X factor. NicNat can jump over tall buildings and palm the ball to an accelerating Priddis. Almost unstoppable. From the little I've seen, ditto Sandilands/Fyfe. Goldstein can ruck tirelessly all day, is mobile, marks the ball all around the ground, runs forward to kick goals and backwards to help the defence. Paddy Ryder leaps a bit like NicNat and is athletic and hard to contain. Leigh Brown could play in almost any position on the ground. Flexibility can be an X factor.
At the moment, Grundy and Witts are no match for such ruckmen. Nevertheless we often win our share of clearances because our midfielders are smart. However, both have shown the ability to jump. Further, Witts showed against GWS that he could win the hitouts against Mumford.
What we might be able to get out of our ruck duo is synergy. They haven't often played in the same team, I suspect because neither is considered good enough to hold down his spot - but you have to have someone in the ruck. If each was a competent ruckman with an X factor, both might hold their place in the team. Now the resting ruckman could be swung to either end of the ground as needed, rather than soaking up interchanges.
Below par with potential upside.
Waiting in the wings
Injuries and the VFL house some of our future stock. I have no form for Scharenberg, Moore (great things expected - but this year ... ?), Freeman. Players recovering from injury include Young, Reid, Greenwood, Ramsay, Sinclair, Macaffer. And also Karnezis, Gault, Dwyer, Kennedy, Armstrong, others. I might have some of the players in wrong categories.
Forget Keeffe and Josh Thomas. Keeffe's loss in particular is structurally destabilising.
Reid is one obviously highly desirable return. However, it might not be as good a deal as it looks on paper: Frost has been elevated off the rookie list because of Reid's long-term injury; if we regain Reid, we might lose Frost. I'm not sure how the system works. Can we then claim Frost as a replacement for, say, Macaffer? Or do we end up with only two tall defenders? A fully fit Reid is probably in our best 6. Reid is not a man of steel. He's getting older. You'd like him to have some stability. Imponderable.
Greenwood is a ready-made midfielder who has sufficient form to be an automatic selection when fit.
I'm keen to see more of Ramsay.
Don't count on much from Kennedy. I think he's very similar to Sinclair (who is either better or has a better track record). But he has only played 2 games, both as the sub.
If Moore is as good as his dad, then we have a potential Joe Daniher (or Peter Moore): full forward and ruck. But I suspect that we're talking 2016 or 2017.
I suspect that Young will be chosen when he is fit. I don't think he has delivered as much as expected.
Dwyer started with quite a bang, as might be expected from a mature-age recruit from the VFL. But I am not aware of any growth. You get what you see: a competent good ordinary player. But good enough to take the team up the ladder? Someone with improvement? I don't say no; I merely say that I have no evidence.
Not a lot.
The wrap
There is no case for optimism.
The cupboard's a bit bare when it comes to proven quality players lining up to come into the team. Although anything could happen, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that we are on the verge of a step up in quality; or that synergy will suddenly and dramatically increase. Even with Cloke playing like he has in the last couple of games, I can't see us competing with the top eight let alone the top four.
Consequently, we must pin our hopes on organic growth; this is slow and steady. 2015 is for building and consolidating; learning to play to the plan; becoming a cohesive unit.
I honestly can't recall what we were like in 2009. I can't remember what we were like half way through 2010. But at the moment, I'd guess we are not like 2010 and possibly not even like 2009. And don't forget that in 2010 we gained Jolly and Ball. Do you think that might have been a step up in quality?
For all that, we have considerable downside. Last year is the model. If we start losing soldiers, especially tall defenders, then 2015 might be a lot worse than not winning a premiership; it might be a repeat of 2014: pretty much a complete waste of a year.
I'm going to hope that even when we are outclassed (starting with Fremantle on Thursday), we show some fight; that we try to gain something from every challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment