Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Essendon 4.3 6.6 11.9 15.10 100 Collingwood 1.2 5.9 9.12 11.16 82
I feel like a broken record. I feel like any of these reviews could apply to any of the first 5 games (with the possible exception of the Sydney game).
Look at this:
1.5 7.9 9.11 12.14 86
2.4 4.9 7.13 11.14 80
4.4 7.4 9.8 11.14 80
2.6 3.7 5.8 7.13 55
1.2 5.9 9.12 11.16 82
Is there a remarkable regularity about these figures? Look in particular at the second-last column. Notice anything similar? [spoiler alert] In every case, we have kicked more behinds than goals. How can any team expect to win under these circumstances?
In this game in particular, when we had our quarter in the sun, we kicked 4.7! Crisp and Fasolo both missed regulation set shots; Elliott hit the post from about 50, a shot that the commentators thought was home off the boot.
Pendlebury started at full forward and we thought we might see something a little different, but it did not appear to last.
My impression was that Essendon players were smarter all day. For example within the first minute on the countdown clock, two different Essendon players had kicked the ball off the ground in preference to attempting to pick it up. It looked like someone had told them it was a day for wet-weather footy. Even had you not been told, surely the shower that fell during that time would have tipped you off. We're not talking drizzle.
There was however one similarity between the sides and it seemed to last throughout the match. Reliably when players kicked into F50, they landed the ball squarely in the arms of an Essendon player.
Within the first 5 minutes, after Essendon had kicked the first 2 goals (far too easily), Collingwood delighted its fans with a lovely piece of team work. Fasolo dropped a mark that he might have taken (I don't know how much to allow for the slippery conditions - but he did get both hands to it unopposed), recovered, picked it up and chipped it to Elliott who did not have to break stride in playing on to kick a goal. "Well constructed," says BT.
Every other team has now learnt how to kick goals from extremely acute angles; not Collingwood. Perhaps it's beneath their dignity; they can score adequately the way that has been handed down from father to son. Not. (Perhaps the names Moore, Daicos and Brown have caused the brains trust some confusion in this area.)
About halfway through the quarter, assuming that Broomhead actually knew where Fasolo was, we saw another nice piece of teamwork as the pass was marked by Fasolo, 35 out on a slight angle. Fasolo missed. He kicked 1.3 for the match and, despite being the hero of the Sydney game, has managed 9.13 for the year (113.73 for his AFL career). He is 4.10 from set shots this year.
After Collingwood scores a minor, I don't think you want Cox standing the mark - for two reasons: I don't think he's really a threat if the opponent kicking in decides to play on; and you'd prefer him 65m out contesting the mark.
Collingwood players were fumbly all day. And they still have a tendency to try to do too much, not take first options. It cost them dearly in turnovers. Even Sidebottom fumbled several times before snapping a wonderful goal in the second quarter. A little later, Treloar delighted the fans with his solo effort, letting an opponent run past him before snapping a gem.
The Pies got to within 3 points at half time (6.6-5.9), but all rued the missed opportunities. Had they been ahead by 7 points (2 easy goals instead of behinds), they could have built scoreboard pressure. It was never to be; the Pies spent the day playing catch-up.
The Bombers kicked the first two goals of the first and third quarters; and the first three of the fourth quarter, sealing the game.
In Q3, Elliott snapped one out of the air, about 12m out. Three minutes later, Elliott on 50 marked a Ramsay left-foot hack. As he went back to take his kick, he saw Wells running forward. Elliott shaped to play on for his kick, drew his opponent and handballed to Wells, who ran to 40 and drilled it. Sadly such nice passages of play were few and far between, lost in an ocean of clangers.
Grundy is improving, but still has a way to go. Around the ground, as a player, he is not too bad. I'm thinking of his ruckwork, especially at the centre bounces. Early in his career, he would leap high into the air, but way too early; he would land before the ball came down. Now he is timing his leaps much better, but he often palms it directly to the opposition; or, he drops it close, where our player might get it, but is immediately tackled. He might be better off taking a leaf out of Clark Keating's book and just bashing it forward as far as he can. There are different ways to gain territory.
Halfway through Q3, Cox showed him just how it's done. He punched the throw-up 15m forward, there were several passages of scrambly, fumbly play, including an extremely bad decision - but the ball ended up in Collingwood's F50. The Bombers eventually repelled that attack but on their outward run turned over the ball which was fired back into F50, this time resulting in a goal to Moore. Collingwood had kicked three in a row to take the lead (1 point) for the first time in the match.
It was not to last. From the restart, Daniher kicked a goal from nearly the centre of the ground.
At the next bounce, Cox, tapped it to Treloar's advantage, perhaps the first time that the Pies' ruck combination had managed the feat for the day. Unfortunately, Treloar was not able to take advantage, failing to take possession.
Going forward, the Pies failed to get overlaps. The play consisted of kick and mark. Stop. Go back. Kick and mark. Yes, you've maintained possession, but you've given the defence time to set up. And then the Pies would kick laterally. And then backwards. And then ...?
For all my grumbling, for much of the game it looked like Essendon had an extra player or two. That's a sign that they were using the ball more effectively.
Pendlebury has not been playing well for some time. In this game he had relatively few disposals (20) and was credited with 4 clangers. I don't think I've ever seen him turn over the ball so often. I can't help feeling he is pining for his mate Swan.
In the final seconds of Q3, Adams had a set shot from 35 on about a 45-degree angle and missed bringing Collingwood's tally for the day to 1.8 from set shots (Essendon: 7.5). How can any team expect to win with such inaccuracy? How can any team expect to win when it provides its opponents with so many opportunities?
Finally, in Q4, Moore was able to take a mark at full forward, 20m out. Goal. The pass from Pendlebury 65 out was perhaps his best moment of the game; maybe his only good moment.
The wrap
Collingwood has the players. The team showed that when they strung together passages of play which put them in the lead. So, if it's not the players, then who? The players defend the coach. Maybe - but they might be wrong. Coaches are supposed to get more out of players than they can be expected to deliver. These players are not delivering close to expectation. If it's not the coach, perhaps it's the club. Have they been distracted by women's sports (AFLW and netball)? Is it time for a change at the top? Buckley/the club now preside over the worst start to a season since 2012 (when Buckley took over as coach).
One thing's for sure: things are rotten in the state of Magpie land.
There was a time when I used to enjoy watching replays and dissecting the game. Now I'd rather spend time working on my Spanish. Bring back 2011.
Sources, Notes, Footnotes, References
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=9351
http://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/A/Alex_Fasolo.html
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2017-04-25/talking-points-set-shots-really-matter
http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2017/040520170425.html
No comments:
Post a Comment