Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Collingwood 1.5 7.9 9.11 12.14 86 Bulldogs 5.1 9.1 14.6 15.10 100
Preconceptions
Ever since I saw the draw, whenever I thought of this match, I looked back to our round 10 encounter with the Bulldogs last year. In case you don't remember, Collingwood kicked the same number of goals as the Bulldogs in each of the first three quarters, with the Pies always ahead at the break. After four players were injured, we played the last quarter with no substitutes and lost the quarter 5 goals to 1.
And so ...
That we lost last year by 21 points whereas we ended only 14 points down this time might suggest we have improved on the reigning premier. (Last year we were 28% down on our opponents; this year only 14%.)
Perspectives
There are many different ways to see this match.
Collingwood looked pretty ordinary in the first and first part of the second quarter. Then we had a purple patch, going into half time a mere 4 points down. The Pies kicked the first goal of the third quarter and held the lead - sadly, for the last time. I guess given the standings of the two teams at the end of last year, one might have expected Collingwood to be smashed; but Collingwood came back again in the last quarter. The quarter margins for Collingwood were -20 +16 -21 +11.
At quarter time, Collingwood had had the ball in their forward half a whopping 65% of the time - and trailed by 20 points. In the stands, I felt that Bulldogs score flattered them: they had kicked at least two missable goals; whereas our score insulted (what's the opposite of flattered?) us: we failed to make the most of our opportunities. Varcoe's report might have contributed. Both he and Blair were guilty of some poor choices. We thought they chose to shoot when passing was the better option and in at least one case (Varcoe over the head of Cox) was possibly a poor choice and an ever poorer execution.
Fasolo in particular was egregiously disappointing. Mr 95% missed two regulation set shots, then kicked a much harder shot from further out under some amount of pressure. He finished with a team-high and equal game-high 3 goals, but he missed another regulation shot in Q4.
That was not the only example of Collingwood players proving to be their own worst enemies. Every now and then, when we had one of our (all too few) passages of sublime play, I remarked that it's really a very simple game - if you just don't over-complicate things.
At half time, when it could legitimately be said that the game was in the balance, I wondered aloud whether we were being beaten by the Dogs or by ourselves.
Positives
Collingwood won the kicks, handballs, disposals, marks, hitouts, clearances, inside 50s - but not the tackle count. I have the sense that Collingwood does well when it tackles well. And most tellingly,
Collingwood's conversion rate at 46% was well down on the Dogs' 60%.
Cox's rucking was not bad.
Howe was superb (11 marks - many crucial).
Speaking of Howe, I'm not sure that it's a positive when it comes to winning games, but his play, and at times that of a few others, certainly made for some very watchable footy. Unfortunately, there were also large patches of play which were painful.
Negatives
Collingwood got nothing out of its tall forwards. Mason Cox managed a solitary mark, but missed the shot, directly in front, 30m out. The ball slipped through Moore's hands twice on occasions that had the potential to turn the game. I think Moore's 4 marks were outside 50. Jesse White's one goal came from a handpass 20m out, and could have been kicked by anyone standing in that position. He took one breathtaking mark that brought the fans out of their seats - but missed the subsequent shot (from a severe angle). He wandered far and wide for the rest of his 8 marks.
If you want to call Goldsack a tall forward (a hard argument to make since he played in defence and isn't really tall, merely tallish), then you would still have to discount his goal, which came from a hand-off outside 50 after Varcoe had marked - in a position from which he ought to have been able to kick the goal.
Collingwood was not well served by its defence. Reid seemed to be a bit off. I'm not sure who was marking whom, but it seemed that he did not observe the first rule of defence: defend - it looked like he let his opponents get goal-side of him when the team pushed up in offence. The Bulldogs got many goals from the goal-square.
Except for the purple patches, Collingwood played without "glue" (they were not cohesive). There were plenty of examples, but one moment stands out for me. Jesse White marks on the wing, seems to amble slowly back to take his kick, looks around, sees nothing, dawdles some more - then finally kicks backwards. It speaks of a negative mindset when even a neutral mindset would not have been enough.
What might have been
It's probably mean-spirited to bag Collingwood's most productive forward, but he really could have had 6 goals (rather than 3.3).
Collingwood started the last quarter trailing by 25 points. Five minutes in, Pendlebury kicked his first, on the run after a ruck duel from close to the boundary. It was even better than Hunter's earlier goal from about the same position; a real captain's goal. It should have fired the Pies up. The Bulldogs were suddenly demonstrating that they were human, missing a set shot (Stringer) before kicking their only goal for the quarter (Picken). Then Cox marked - should have goaled (10 minutes); and Fasolo should have goaled (11 minutes); Hoskin-Elliott (14 minutes) and Pendlebury (for his second, 18 minutes) did goal. That would have left the Pies within a kick with 10 minutes to play.
In that final quarter, Collingwood kicked 3.3 to 1.4. Although there was never another credible shot by the Pies, the game's dynamics change dramatically when one side is kicking goals and reducing the margin.
The wrap
For all the woulda-coulda-shouldas, my gut feeling is that, on the day, we were outclassed; that had we played a bit better, the Dogs, who were not outstanding, still had a bit in the tank.
On any day, even the worst teams can pull out a match-winning performance (look what we did to Geelong in round 9 last year). The marks of a team that will play in September is that its performances tend to be fairly even; and that it finds a way to win. Collingwood could not be accused of having either.
On this performance, Collingwood showed that it has not improved in key areas from last year. It still leaked goals at an alarming rate. Its own scoring came from far too few personnel (pretty much all smalls).
I guess there's more room for improvement in the Pies than there is in the Dogs - but it seems to me eerily like I've been saying something along those lines for several years.
Sources, Notes, Footnotes, References
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=9308
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-match-centre/afl-live-scores-collingwood-magpies-v-western-bulldogs--2017-round-one-20170324-gv5yup.html
No comments:
Post a Comment