List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2022--> PART 2

[manicpie]

Suns have delisted Oleg Markov.

Would provide some good rebound off half back

He ain't ricochet rabbit

 

[Go Woods]

I think he replaces Johnson.

Don't agree, different players, tough one tho. Don't want to see AJ lose his spot as he has unique attributes, adds that X factor we need. I also see Krueger as part of the forward structure, problem is we can't fit them all in....

 

[sr36]

Don't agree, different players, tough one tho. Don't want to see AJ lose his spot as he has unique attributes, adds that X factor we need. I also see Krueger as part of the forward structure, problem is we can't fit them all in....

I think he'll lose his end of year role - as the primary deep tall target in the team. Hopefully he's good enough to pin down another role - but with Kreuger and Mihocek, there's decent competition for hte first time for a long time.

 

[Jen2310]

Don't agree, different players, tough one tho. Don't want to see AJ lose his spot as he has unique attributes, adds that X factor we need. I also see Krueger as part of the forward structure, problem is we can't fit them all in....

He will need to earn it again, but this time with more competition.

 

[jonbe54]

I think he'll lose his end of year role, as the primary deep tall target in the team. Hopefully he's good enough to pin down another role - but with Kreuger and Mihocek, there's decent competition for hte first time for a long time.

And how freekin good is that?!!!!

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Has Chrispiesssss hacked your account?

Damn apex, why the drive by?

 

[jonbe54]

Damn apex, why the drive by?

It's just what he does and gets away with it.

 

[sr36]

And how freekin good is that?!!!!

Only one ruck and a forward line of McStay, Mihocek and one of Kreuger or Johnson could be pretty good when combined with a combination of Elliott Ginni McCreery and Hill. Really looking forward to watching us next year.

 

[jonbe54]

Only one ruck and a forward line of McStay, Mihocek and one of Kreuger or Johnson could be pretty good when combined with a combination of Elliott Ginni McCreery and Hill. Really looking forward to watching us next year.

Yep if they all play to close to their ceiling our forward line will be literally transformed.

 

[Finnishpie]

That we play better without him?

And by better, you mean worse....

 

[Kirby]

Yep if they all play to close to their ceiling our forward line will be literally transformed.

Especially if they leave their fans on

 

[gouki88]

It's just what he does and gets away with it.

Someone should lock him up, right?

 

[jonbe54]

Only one ruck and a forward line of McStay, Mihocek and one of Kreuger or Johnson could be pretty good when combined with a combination of Elliott Ginni McCreery and Hill. Really looking forward to watching us next year.

Some people are down on Hill for not kicking bags of goals but firstly as we all know small forwards can often find themselves on starvation corner lol.

Also if you add another couple of the three he doesn't need to kick a bag.

Genuine flexibility built into that lineup.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

An emerging trend in the trading philosophies of some teams thus far in this trading period? A phenomenon that seems to revolve around what may be called 'strength-position-twinning'? We've had Neale and Dunkley and Gawn and Grundy as prime examples of this. The chief characteristic of the strategy appears to be that these teams are doubling up in areas of significant existing positional superiority. Nor does this seem to be sheerly a matter of simple succession planning (given the relatively minor age differentials of the 'twins' involved in comparison with that between an established player and a young recruit). In some ways, Collingwood seems to be adopting this strategy: Adams and Mitchell a prime example (and maybe, to a lesser extent McStay and Cameron?). The question is - other than providing useful injury cover - what is the primary purpose of doing this?

Interesting question. One of the main reasons I joined BF is to enjoy the knowledge of our posters in areas I have absolutely no expertise in such as trade, free agency and drafting. I was somewhat bemused by the Grundy to Melbourne move and your post offers a possible explanation. However it got me wondering whether some clubs are doubling up because they have inside knowledge that the tactical sub, 23rd man rule is definitely coming in. Just a thought.

 

[Buckleys_Chance]

Interesting question. One of the main reasons I joined BF is to enjoy the knowledge of our posters in areas I have absolutely no expertise in such as trade, free agency and drafting. I was somewhat bemused by the Grundy to Melbourne move and your post offers a possible explanation. However it got me wondering whether some clubs are doubling up because they have inside knowledge that the tactical sub, 23rd man rule is definitely coming in. Just a thought.

I have very little understanding of the tactical side of the game but from my novice observation I think Melbourne will really struggle if they allow five on the bench because they appear to be wedded to a traditional midfield whereas other competitive teams (pies, Sydney, Geelong) have gone heavy on rotating through the midfield. If you watch the Collingwood v Melbourne replay Melbourne are the dominant team for three quarters until their midfield is gassed in the last quarter. I think an extra man on the bench will make this a bigger problem for them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Couch Coach]

I have very little understanding of the tactical side of the game but from my novice observation I think Melbourne will really struggle if they allow five on the bench because they appear to be wedded to a traditional midfield whereas other competitive teams (pies, Sydney, Geelong) have gone heavy on rotating through the midfield. If you watch the Collingwood v Melbourne replay Melbourne are the dominant team for three quarters until their midfield is gassed in the last quarter. I think an extra man on the bench will make this a bigger problem for them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The number of interchanges is not proposed to be changed though is it?

 

[Quicky]

Interesting question. One of the main reasons I joined BF is to enjoy the knowledge of our posters in areas I have absolutely no expertise in such as trade, free agency and drafting. I was somewhat bemused by the Grundy to Melbourne move and your post offers a possible explanation. However it got me wondering whether some clubs are doubling up because they have inside knowledge that the tactical sub, 23rd man rule is definitely coming in. Just a thought.

My take is Melbourne have based much of their recruiting on their clearance (+ intercept defenders but thats separate) and are future planning. Gawn is closer to the end than the start and is declining, while their mids will be strong for awhile. Grundy maintains that dominance into the future, and I think they'd consider keeps them in a window beyond Gawn.

 

[Kappa]

Our game plan has been on display for all to see for an entire season, I seriously doubt that Grundy will have any meaningful intelligence to add to what Melbourne’s coaching staff already know.

“So our plan was for me to tap it to my feet”

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

I have very little understanding of the tactical side of the game but from my novice observation I think Melbourne will really struggle if they allow five on the bench because they appear to be wedded to a traditional midfield whereas other competitive teams (pies, Sydney, Geelong) have gone heavy on rotating through the midfield. If you watch the Collingwood v Melbourne replay Melbourne are the dominant team for three quarters until their midfield is gassed in the last quarter. I think an extra man on the bench will make this a bigger problem for them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Possibly. I was thinking more along the lines of particular clubs seeing an opportunity to trade in a player in that would allow them to fully utilise a new rule whereas they may have chosen a different player under the current medi-sub rule.

 

[sr36]

I have very little understanding of the tactical side of the game but from my novice observation I think Melbourne will really struggle if they allow five on the bench because they appear to be wedded to a traditional midfield whereas other competitive teams (pies, Sydney, Geelong) have gone heavy on rotating through the midfield. If you watch the Collingwood v Melbourne replay Melbourne are the dominant team for three quarters until their midfield is gassed in the last quarter. I think an extra man on the bench will make this a bigger problem for them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think 5 on the bench would help rather than harm Melbourne. It means that they could play another genuine inside mid in the team to rotate through there to keep their strength and combat their mids getting gassed and thus reduce the second half fade outs that killled them this year.

 

[sr36]

My take is Melbourne have based much of their recruiting on their clearance (+ intercept defenders but thats separate) and are future planning. Gawn is closer to the end than the start and is declining, while their mids will be strong for awhile. Grundy maintains that dominance into the future, and I think they'd consider keeps them in a window beyond Gawn.

Good point. Years 3-5 of the contract are probably why both of us were keen to do the trade. Them because it's when Gawn is likely to decline and us because it's when the contract is likely to be at its most dire.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

My take is Melbourne have based much of their recruiting on their clearance (+ intercept defenders but thats separate) and are future planning. Gawn is closer to the end than the start and is declining, while their mids will be strong for awhile. Grundy maintains that dominance into the future, and I think they'd consider keeps them in a window beyond Gawn.

Yeah this sounds logical as far as Melbourne are concerned. I was just wondering that if the clubs are certain of this rule change whether this would have influenced their trading strategy this year.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

For what it’s worth I think we have a list that could take advantage of the rumoured 23rd player change.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

The number of interchanges is not proposed to be changed though is it?

My understanding is that the number of interchanges would not change. Just that the sub can be used tactically rather than for purely medical reasons.

 

[manicpie]

My understanding is that the number of interchanges would not change. Just that the sub can be used tactically rather than for purely medical reasons.

I think the increasing the number of interchange to 5 is still in the discussion