Coach Craig McRae

Remove this Banner Ad

Schultz has been in our team less than one season. He came into a premiership winning team and yes, expectations have been high (at least externally), but it should be remembered that his role was to be at the feet of some big power forward and to place offensive pressure and keep the ball inside forward 50. Given the injuries, and structural issues we've experienced this year I am not surprised that Schoota's role has been thrown on its head. He has, in my estimation, still by-and-large performed extremely well and I am confident that he will evolve into a dangerous and competitve beast for us moving forward. I consider him to be an sset to the team and it would be wise to reserve jusdgement on his bvalue until closer to the end of his time at Collingwood - not in the first '5 minutes'.
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
Many here won't want to admit it but it's pretty clear to this point in time that we didn't get the same Schultz Freo had

Hopefully it turns around but as of this moment, yeah...this has been the first real trade/recruiting blunder of the Graeme Wright era.
Click to expand...
But it's not a blunder. On all available evidence, he was the best pick up over the break of any club. All of the SEN mob were in raptures over our canny steal! The premiers have actually made themselves even more dangerous in one stealthy trade. Nobody said it was a bad move other than the fact it pushed out Jack who was on the outer at that stage anyway.
 
sr36 said:
When would you have subbed him in?

At the 13 minute mark of the final quarter, we were 26 points up, and well on top with our defensive system well and truly nullifying them.

They then got one against the run of play from a contested mark by Hayward and then immediately another from a clearance with a hack kick from stoppage that fell fortuitously for McDonald. Game on. But the goals weren't about run.

Considering our game plan for the best part of 3 years has been to lock down and play for a nil all draw to protect the lead in that situation, would you have subbed out a defensive beast in Schultz to bring in Richards then? Or who else would you have subbed out and why? I suppose you could have subbed out a ruck to play the defensive strategy more effectively - risky in terms of aerial balls though. And imagine the melts if he had have subbed in Richards and then Richards fresh into the game wasn't fully with it and made a defensive error. Or would you have done what has served us well and not panicked and trusted the defensive strategy?

To me, the writing has been on the wall for a while in terms of keeping teams from scoring when they're rolling the dice for a comeback. Fly's error was sticking to that strategy for too long into the season. Not a game day error. The sub situation wasn't an issue.
Click to expand...

Us being in front or winning has never prevented us using a tactical sub previously?


What we did on Friday was unprecedented. Even for Fly. Regardless of whether we were winning or not, Schultz was having a mare and we had a direct swap sitting on the bench as sub.

I would have brought him on about a quarter of the way through the third.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cousin of Daicos said:
Us being in front or winning has never prevented us using a tactical sub previously?


What we did on Friday was unprecedented. Even for Fly. Regardless of whether we were winning or not, Schultz was having a mare and we had a direct swap sitting on the bench as sub.

I would have brought him on about a quarter of the way through the third.
Click to expand...

When would you have used it?

Would you actually have subbed out one of our best defensive players when we held a last quarter lead, when our strategy is to look to lock down the game to hold on? Seems a crazy idea to me. Unless he was completely gassed, which didn't seem to be the case.
 
Last edited:
Kes1984 said:
no that's a big statement I've made there. Not really accurate. But think a big club environment isn't ideal for him. It would be helpful if people backed off a bit and let him be! Too many eyes on him playing for us - look at the media we get. Too many fans being harshly critical.
Click to expand...
It's a big reason why we don't get certain players wanting to play at our club.

The most supporters is not necessarily a blessing when you have a poor game, or even a poor kick.

And the media scrutiny on us is relentless.
 
sr36 said:
When would you have used it?

Would you actually have subbed out one of our best defensive players when we held a last quarter lead, when our strategy is to look to lock down the game to hold on? Seems a crazy idea to me. Unless he was completely gassed, which didn't seem to be the case.
Click to expand...

You're asking a question I literally answered in the post you quoted

Best defensive player? On Friday? You sure? I can only assume you're referring to tackles? Given he's a forward?

If we ignore he failed the "eye test" miserably, he had less tackles than:

  • Pendlebury
  • Long
  • Hill
  • McCreery

Two of the above are small forwards, like him.

Jamie found slightly more of the ball and also kicked a goal

So yeah...I would have subbed him off during the third quarter in a heartbeat. Because whenever Richards has played he's also been known to apply strong pressure.
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
You're asking a question I literally answered in the post you quoted

Best defensive player? On Friday? You sure? I can only assume you're referring to tackles? Given he's a forward?

If we ignore he failed the "eye test" miserably, he had less tackles than:

  • Pendlebury
  • Long
  • Hill
  • McCreery

Two of the above are small forwards, like him.

Jamie found slightly more of the ball and also kicked a goal

So yeah...I would have subbed him off during the third quarter in a heartbeat. Because whenever Richards has played he's also been known to apply strong pressure.
Click to expand...

Fair enough., But can you see that not making a sub in the middle of the third quarter wasn't such an issue? We had control from that point to half way through the 4th - with our forwards defending extremely well to stop them transitioning the ball from defence - very likely that Schultz was part of it.
 
sr36 said:
Fair enough., But can you see that not making a sub in the middle of the third quarter wasn't such an issue? We had control from that point to half way through the 4th - with our forwards defending extremely well to stop them transitioning the ball from defence - very likely that Schultz was part of it.
Click to expand...

Well it's ultimately all hypothetical no?

Given how deplorable Schultz was and how he kinda directly cost us a goal or two, one could argue that a fresher Richards being there for a quarter and a half and hopefully:

  • Making less mistakes
  • Actually hitting the scoreboard

Potentially helps us hold on
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
I'm not quite willing to completely give up on him yet.

Given how shit our entire season has been, I'm ok with giving him a mulligan on 2024.

But if we get a similar next season? Then yeah it's definitely a bust
Click to expand...

People are down on Bobby also , ill give Schultz benefit of no week by week KPF for stability. Like i do give Bobby that benefit also , our forward line continuity has been atrocious.

My biggest question mark is his composure under pressure and when he is rushed , the decision making and composure seems a bit lacking.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kes1984 said:
Ridiculous. He said far less than most coaches ever say in pressers.
Click to expand...
He left himself open for oppo supporters/media to say he was only admitting to the bias we supposedly receive from umpires & our home ground advantage. Not to mention them now bringing up every 50/50 decision that has gone in our favour.

I'm shocked he spoke like this tbh. I think if he had his time again, he would have worded it differently.
 
OniAu said:
People are down on Bobby also , ill give Schultz benefit of no week by week KPF for stability. Like i do give Bobby that benefit also , our forward line continuity has been atrocious.

My biggest question mark is his composure under pressure and when he is rushed , the decision making and composure seems a bit lacking.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's seemingly no coincidence that now that McStay has been there for a month straight and Cox for a few weeks now, Bobby seems to have improved.

Yet Schultz really hasn't.

But again, we've had a shit season and he's I guess still adjusting?

2025 there's no excuse really
 
The toxic media have been waiting 2 years to have a go at Fly. Chris Scott shoots his mouth off every week and he is treated like a god. The sooner the footy season is over for the media leeches the better.
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
Well it's ultimately all hypothetical no?

Given how deplorable Schultz was and how he kinda directly cost us a goal or two, one could argue that a fresher Richards being there for a quarter and a half and hopefully:

  • Making less mistakes
  • Actually hitting the scoreboard

Potentially helps us hold on
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that. Of course it's all hypothetical. Your latest version is very reasonable and very different to the pitching of it as an unexplainable appalling error that was always going to be destined for disaster.
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
Yeah it's seemingly no coincidence that now that McStay has been there for a month straight and Cox for a few weeks now, Bobby seems to have improved.

Yet Schultz really hasn't.

But again, we've had a shit season and he's I guess still adjusting?

2025 there's no excuse really
Click to expand...

2025 will be interesting.

Schultz just seems to be playing like a player that thinks he needs to do more than what's just enough.

Taylor Adams is the perfect example that comes to mind in terms of doing too much. Just do the basics right and whats in your pocket of skills. No need to be doing things you aren't capable of.
 
His comment wasn't about any MCG advantage, it was to highlight the ground size diff. If they paid the 50m, Mcstay would have been on the goal line for his kick. Same free at the G means he would have been 20m out. Massive dif. So 50m at SCG is umpired diff. So why not say no 50m at the SCG, only 20m.
 
ElliottsMaggies said:
He left himself open for oppo supporters/media to say he was only admitting to the bias we supposedly receive from umpires & our home ground advantage. Not to mention them now bringing up every 50/50 decision that has gone in our favour.

I'm shocked he spoke like this tbh. I think if he had his time again, he would have worded it differently.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree. The standard response is “we lost the game because of things that were well within our control. We didn’t lose it because of an umpiring call”.
 
sr36 said:
Fair enough., But can you see that not making a sub in the middle of the third quarter wasn't such an issue? We had control from that point to half way through the 4th - with our forwards defending extremely well to stop them transitioning the ball from defence - very likely that Schultz was part of it.
Click to expand...

Thats a valid POV, agree with it. I guess that's why it's all debatable. However, it's almost like putting the foot on the throat theory, we need to keep hammering the game. An injection of fresh legs whilst still up is impactful with a quarter and a half left.

Strategies in sports are fascinating, there is so much that goes into it than kicking the crap out of a pig skin or aerial ping pong.
 
76woodenspooners said:
Yeah, agree. The standard response is “we lost the game because of things that were well within our control. We didn’t lose it because of an umpiring call”.
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment, but I can understand Fly being emotional because of a variety of factors:
  • Squandered a 27-point lead, which effectively ended our finals chances. At the time it felt season-ending, but we now know we're still a very slim chance of getting in.
  • McStay's non-50 and the deliberate calls which were being paid to Sydney at an alarming rate.
  • Harrison's ACL injury, which would have affected the group.
If he had his time over, he might have articulated himself differently but the premise of what he said wasn't wrong.
 
ElliottsMaggies said:
It's a big reason why we don't get certain players wanting to play at our club.

The most supporters is not necessarily a blessing when you have a poor game, or even a poor kick.

And the media scrutiny on us is relentless.
Click to expand...
I find this absolutely nonsense. They're professional athletes that are what to mentally weak to want to play for us because they want to be cuddled their whole career? We have had many players under the spotlight for years and they keep performing just like in other sports. Look at Coxy for crying out loud!! Look at Messi and Ronaldo the most eyes on them ever with half the world's population wanting them to fail and they give it to them every chance they get. Hasn't affected them once. Same with tennis players for which it's harder as it's an individual sport but they keep producing for example Djokovic who half the world hates because of his vaccine stance/fight. Guess what he didn't drop off and let it get to him he used it as motivation. Playing for Collingwood in front of 60k most weeks is an absolute luxury and we at Collingwood don't need weak minded individuals as they get you to where Carlton has been for the last couple of decades. We are a fighting club, we get more hate than everyone else, make the most grand finals have the most heartbreaks and we get back up and go again. That's our culture and If you can't fit into that than maybe go play for a North Melbourne.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Craig McRae

Similar threads

ThePhantom777
Toast Formula for success - Craig McRae
Replies
9
Views
751
ThePhantom777
ThePhantom777
3066
Vale Craig Stewart
Replies
18
Views
1K
Gungadin
Gungadin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top