-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
North vs Collingwood - Season defining match?
- Thread starter TassieSaint
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Falchoon
Brownlow Medallist
- Feb 15, 2002
- 29,731
- 10,945
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Bluestar Airlines, Anacott Steel
North are gone, the loss v Richmond was the worst I've ever seen them play. Even worse than rd.22 last year.
They played without heart or accountability.
They played without heart or accountability.
if we lose this week Buckley will be right in everything he said (he already is, anyway) and Buckley will be coach next year.
So even if we lose theres light at the end of the tunnel.
Win-win.
So Malthouse's future rests on next week's result ?
I doubt that Timmy. His record at Collingwood speaks for itself and the current state of the list, lack of gameplan, and failure to develop leaders within the group has already sealed his fate.
The challenge for Collingwood and McGuire now is how to handle the boning.
You've been reading the Richmond board haven't you KK Cat?
You will probably win V North before losing to Saints to keep your win loss win loss win loos win loss record going.
IllBeTheJudge
Premiership Player
- Jun 21, 2008
- 3,396
- 1,587
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- New Orleans Saints, Sth Dragons
What's Craig Bolton got to do with it?
Seems to be a lot of disenchantment down Collingwood way. 6 or 7 years ago I would have loved it for Mick to coach my mob. Add some much needed steel. The "down the wings at all costs" method does seem odd though
It'll certainly be a tough match to tip come Friday night. Both teams coming off losses they shouldn't have had. Draw?
Why would I read the Richmond board?
We will win against North. That will put us 3-3. If we dont win, all bets are off and the blowtorch will be applied to Malthouse.
We'll cross the StKilda bridge when we get to it. We have a good record against them.
The state of the list is actually pretty good. The gameplan is tired - agree with you there - however the leadership issue is over-rated. Funnily enough we missed Nick Maxwell on the weekend. He'll grow into the role once he learns to stop with the he-man rubbish. Our supposed lack of leadership really is more a lack of experience across the list - the rubbbish games played by Fraser and Lockyer on the weekend notwithstanding.
I just think MM has had his time. As you state, its a matter of how to handle the boning. Last time when Tony Shaw was on death row, the tarnsition was orderly. I'd be hoping for the same this year.
But we've already lost two games we should have won this year. If we lose a third on the weekend, I cant see how we can possibly handle an orderly transition. It will have to get nasty.
Six or seven years ago we were pleased to have him.
The gameplan is a symptom of the list, rather than a separate issue IMO.
Furthermore, the fact that Maxwell is your captain and needs to grow into a leadership role speaks volumes. Yes, he does have to cut out the wannabe tough-guy crap, but that's just evidence that he doesn't think he's up to the job of being captain on his own merits. That the choice came down to Maxwell with all his qualities, Fraser (who got flogged in the ruck by a team without a ruckman) and Pendlebury (who probably should have got the job, albeit a few years too early ... but what other real option was there ?) is tangible evidence of a leadership vacuum. This has been Malthouse's greatest failing.
IllBeTheJudge
Premiership Player
- Jun 21, 2008
- 3,396
- 1,587
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- New Orleans Saints, Sth Dragons
Captaincy should have gone to Lockyer I reckon
Maxwell is intelligent enough to grow into the role in a matter of weeks, not years. The only real question was about his ability as a footballer to perform the role. After the performances of Cox Toovey and Goldsack on the weekend - all young and developing - there is no doubt that Maxwell is in our best back 6. Personally I would also have chosen Pendlebury as captain, but he's leading as well as anybody out there irrespective of his official title.
Disagree about the gameplan being symptomatic of the list, though. We have a forwardline capable of big scores and contested marks just as long as the ball comes in quickly. The gameplan is MM's design.
Disagree about the gameplan being symptomatic of the list, though. We have a forwardline capable of big scores and contested marks just as long as the ball comes in quickly. The gameplan is MM's design.
Hope you're joking
I don't think I can face watching us at the moment, I might have to watch the rugby league on Friday night.
You've just hit the nail on the head Timmy.
Surely you'd be wanting your next captain to come from a group of leaders (who, by definition, are already doing some leading) ?
The Collingwood decision to appoint Maxwell is evidence that there was no group of leaders to choose from. As you have written yourself, they took a punt on someone hoping they'd develop some leadership qualities.
The development of leadership within the group at Collingwood is dysfunctional at best and non-existant at worse. People point to two main reasons for this:
1. Buckley. With an omnipotent leader like Buckley, for a long time a leadership transition plan (or 'sharing the load' even) was considered unnecessary. Even when the old bloke was breaking down every time he got beyond a trot, there was still no transition to a new leader who could make it out onto the park more than five times per season. This is where your failure to appoint Clement cost you. Buckley was the leadership, and because of that the role was not shared and the development of younger leaders was not a priority. What happened when Buckley pulled the pin though ? Collingwood had a tough choice to make between Fraser, Rocca and Burns (with Maxwell getting shitty that he wasn't considered). They went with a temporary leader because there was no other option.
2. Malthouse. Mick's hands-on controlling leadership style has made him the big dog within the pack, rather than taking a role that places him apart from the player group. With Mick and Nathan at the front, why would a young player see the need to begin to lead ? He wouldn't unless he already had strong leadership credentials. The lack of strong effective leaders within Collingwood's established players, suggests that leadership development wasn't an important point in their development as younger blokes. This is likely to be where blokes like Didak were failed by the coach.
IllBeTheJudge
Premiership Player
- Jun 21, 2008
- 3,396
- 1,587
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- New Orleans Saints, Sth Dragons
Nope. Would have been a better choice than Maxwell, who is lucky to still be on the list. Though considering your comment about Maxwell still being part of your best back 6 ...
Pendlebury seems to have really stepped up so far this season. Maybe they should have put all their eggs in one basket with him. Too much pressure perhaps, let him develop his game
Always going to be a tough choice for captain
Lockyer cost us the match on Saturday when he kicked to a contest at the kick-in with a minute to go. He doesnt tackle and doesnt get hard balls.
He is not captaincy material.
He is not captaincy material.
Please dont misquote me.
They took a punt on somebody with the best leadership qualities despite his comparatively limited football ability. And he has made a couple of mistakes early in his tenure. That happens to a lot of players. I'd rather a leader fly the flag too much rather than not at all - eg Brent Harvey in the first three rounds of this year.
Maxwell will find the balance pretty soon. He's not stupid.
Back on topic
For North, its not a season defining match, win or lose
For Collingwood, its not a season defining match if they win.
BUT IF COLLINGWOOD LOSE...............
Oh boy.
For North, its not a season defining match, win or lose
For Collingwood, its not a season defining match if they win.
BUT IF COLLINGWOOD LOSE...............
Oh boy.
Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 24,971
- 61,712
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
That's a fair summary.
North were already struggling and have now lost Harvey for as good as the rest of the season. Being humiliated by Richmond - you can't go lower than that, and now there's no real expectation for this week or any of the year to come.
Hansen is a huge loss in a very inexperienced backline - Collingwood might have limited avenues to goal on current form but I'm stuffed if I can see how North will stop them anyway. Collingwood have important players to come back and should easily win this one.
Despite letting Saturday slip, they haven't looked as poor as North in reaching 2-3, and there'd be reasonable expectations they'll recover from the shaky start and have an influence this year.
disagree I think it is far more frustrating to watch a team who has shown at it can beat geelong (the competition bench mark) and play the most intense 4 quarters by one side I have ever seen to then to watch them get beatean by bottom eight sides consistentley playing crap footy then to watch team who plays crap all the time at least you then know where you're heading and how to change that. With collingwood the prognosis changes every week.
Similar threads
