Analysis System, buy in and talent

[MarkT2]

That's true but to suggest that Adams cannot improve is folly

Of course it is and I never said that. The reality is though, it is a minority of poor kicks that ever become really good kicks. The gulf in our skills is not resolvable by development. It is first and foremost a talent deficiency. Yes we can make improvement with better development and coaching but it won't ever be enough until there are substantial personal changes. Our list issues start with the talent we have brought in. We do not have the talent on this list to win a premiership and it is not fixable with 1 off season.

I agree there are some gaps between players that development won't bridge, but it still sounds like you have no hope of improvement in our skills, decision making and physical preparation through good coaching (development) and only trading in already better skilled players will fix our problems and I disagree

No question we can improve but we cannot IMO make sufficient improvement to challenge for a flag without somewhere around 8 best 22 changes. A key forward and a key back at a minimum. A small defender. A quick skilled play reading half back to compliment Howe's intercept marking. 2-3 quick skilled kids. That gets up around top 4. Then it's a matter of replacing adequate players with better versions like we did in late '00s.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course it is and I never said that. The reality is though, it is a minority of poor kicks that ever become really good kicks. The gulf in our skills is not resolvable by development. It is first and foremost a talent deficiency. Yes we can make improvement with better development and coaching but it won't ever be enough until there are substantial personal changes. Our list issues start with the talent we have brought in. We do not have the talent on this list to win a premiership and it is not fixable with 1 off season.
No question we can improve but we cannot IMO make sufficient improvement to challenge for a flag without somewhere around 8 best 22 changes. A key forward and a key back at a minimum. A small defender. A quick skilled play reading half back to compliment Howe's intercept marking. 2-3 quick skilled kids. That gets up around top 4. Then it's a matter of replacing adequate players with better versions like we did in late '00s.

So what you're saying is what we did in 99 to 03 is not possible and cannot be achieved again? Because that success was largely due to development, if you're saying we can't now then you don't have confidence in the coaching panel to improve our cattle and if you're correct then no amount of trading in talent will improve our position.

Talent can be brought in and improved - but it takes more than that. Cohesion and attitude is required as well, without develolpment you're nowhere. So in summary I disagree with you're sentiment and have more confidence in the talent our list has

 

[MarkT2]

So what you're saying is what we did in 99 to 03 is not possible and cannot be achieved again? Because that success was largely due to development, if you're saying we can't now then you don't have confidence in the coaching panel to improve our cattle and if you're correct then no amount of trading in talent will improve our position.

Talent can be brought in and improved - but it takes more than that. Cohesion and attitude is required as well, without develolpment you're nowhere. So in summary I disagree with you're sentiment and have more confidence in the talent our list has

Firstly we didn't win the flag in that period and rebuilt to bring in more skill as a consequence. Even then we only won a flag when we went further and exited some average plodders that had served the club well.

Secondly the 2002/3 "success" was far from only or even mostly development based. We brought in players via early draft picks and trades. Clement was a big plus to the back 6 and we added mids from other clubs. There was natural development in players like Rocca and Tarrant - building on the talent which is entirely the point I'm making. We were going nowhere with Patterson, Wilde, Dimmatina, Hassel and co. We didn't fail to develop them they just weren't good enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying quality development programs and for that matter game plan and system are not vital to winning premierships but you will not get there unless you start with talent.

Moore, Elliot & Fasolo up forward have it. Reid at CHB and Howe have it although Reid looks on the way out. Grundy, Pedlebury, Treloar, De Goey, Sidebottom are all ticks. Adams is the one I'd carry with poor footskills because he can get the ball but he does need development with skills and decision making. Maynard has a fair bit to work with - a classic for development and big potential upside. There aren't many others on the list past 21 years old I'd be fussed if we lost just off the top of me head. Players like Varco & Wells can play but injury and age significantly reduces their value and likelyhood to play in a flag for us.

The rest cannot be developed into a premiership side. That's not to say it's impossible to win a flag with any of them in the side, just that collectively there is not nearly enough talent so most have to be replaced by 2021 or so when we'd have any prospect of contending seriously for a flag.

None of the list rebuilding will work without development though. We don't actually disagree on that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Firstly we didn't win the flag in that period and rebuilt to bring in more skill as a consequence

Let's get 1 thing straight it was HQ's intention for bris to win those flags - no one but no one else were going to win those IMO they are moot

Secondly the 2002/3 "success" was far from only or even mostly development based. We brought in players via early draft picks and trades

I agree we brought players in but I'd argue that the development of the cattle we already had was largely the reason for us punching above our weight. Not the players we brought - sure they had some effect but it is widely recognised that we developed extremely well in that period and that was the main reason.

For the bulk of your post you seem to be more open to the fact development is very important and we just disagree on the level of that importance

 

[Scodog10]

Here we sit 10 months advanced from when I first started this discussion in a much healthier position! We’ve still had injuries in 2018 (funny no one is playing the injury card anymore), the talent is really the same given the only blokes new from 2017 that have played more than half the season are Stephenson and Murray, we have a clearly defined way of playing now and we seem to know what our best 22 structure is.

Has anyone’s opinion changed? Without reading through the thread I remember a couple of posters in particular that were adamant talent was the issue...

Were I to pinpoint three areas that have turned us around they would be:

1. Speed/ movement
2. A greater spread of guys playing standout games
3. A moretorium on selection roulette

By increasing our speed/ movement we’re better on both sides of the ball in transition and not constantly chopping and changing our 22 has allowed individuals to settle into their roles. The likes of JT, Shaz and Phillips appear to be the greatest beneficiaries. The only guys that have gone out of the 22 this year due to poor form are Brown, Blair and Murray the rest of our changes have been due to injuries i.e. a guy going out due to an injury or being replaced by someone returning from injury.

What does it all mean in the second half of the season? The best I can offer is that we’re well placed. We overpossess still, IMO, which is a potential weakness over the next 8 weeks as the grounds soften up, but as long as we bank the winnable games it would be hard to argue we aren’t finals bound. Talent aye...

 

[Quicky]

I think we've settled on a structure and stuck with it. Buckley has been coaching better. This starts with playing 6 players in the front third most of the time. We've been screaming out for that for years. We've gone slightly smaller across the ground and added pace. Particularly in defence (more mediums) and forward (much more pace with WHE, Stephenson, DeGoey, Varcoe, Thomas). That's definitely helped our transition and defensive pressure. We've seen some clever match ups that have paid off (Pendles vs Cripps, Bontempelli and Fyfe), (Sidebottom vs Sloane), (Crisp vs Lynch), (Howe vs Dangerfield and Martin when forward), (Shaz vs Cameron).

We're getting that mid tier to step up and contribute. Some because they're hitting that 50 game sweet spot (Phillips), some because they've gotten on the park (Shaz) others because they've got a defined role and the system supports them (WHE - very underrated in our turn around).

Also we have a favourable draw for the first time in a long time has allowed us to settle into our groove.

 

[Quicky]

Where do we improve?

I think there's room to get better at the clearances. We get beaten in there more often than we should with that midfield and Grundy's dominance. Why do we get beaten so often at the centre clearances? Is it clearance structure? Or do we need another extractor in there?

We are still getting hammered by injuries. We've seen some of our guys returning straight to AFL which I reckon is a step up from where we were. But only a modest improvement. Still too many key players are injured. I'd love to have seen more of our best 22. Do we stick with the new fitness team?

We still need a quality key forward!

 

[Vankri]

I'm happier about the way we're playing this season than I've been in the past five, but we're still somewhat unproven. We have an experienced line up – we're not one of the young inexperienced team anymore – and we've beaten who we needed to, but outside of the Adelaide game which in retrospect isn't as great a feat as we thought you wouldn't find a style or season-defining win. Maybe that'll come Monday but we're all equally sitting here thinking it might be a reality check instead.

I never thought talent was the issue from a full list perspective, but it certainly helps us to have natural talent like Scharenberg's, Stephenson's, Hoskin Elliott's and De Goey actually playing week in week out. They bring something different than role players or battlers. Injuries are never 100% of an excuse but I'm a believer in the idea that top players are the biggest factor in the way a team plays (more than coaching, role players, buy in etc.) and in some patches of last year we simply didn't have enough talent in our line ups when Pendles, Wells and Elliott were out.

Buy-in also hasn't been the issue since 2013, and it seems to be even better this year with a good spirit seemingly at the club and better on field leadership from the likes of Pendles and Sidey.

System-wise there are some simple things we've got right:
- Continuity in the back 6: defending is a group effort so whilst you can park an amazing goal kicker forward to do his own show, having chemistry in the backline is huge and we've learnt to stick to a core group.
- Forward set up: Every game I attended last year I was angered by the fact that set up 90% of the time with 5 forwards. So conservative and stupid with the strength of our midfield and ruck and the way we go I50. At last and Bucks admitted it in his presser last week we accepted that it wasn't working and we needed to create more space forward and going with a standard 6 most of the time has made a big difference this year.
- Transition and ball movement: big win for the coaching group on this one, we use to be absolute shite at kick in strategy and ball movement from the opposition turnover. Fast forward and we're now one of the best teams in the competition for it. We're 1st in the comp for scoring from kick-ins and 3rd in the comp for generating an I50 from a defensive 50 chain. We play on a lot more, move the ball in different ways to stay unpredictable (by foot or by hand, boundary or corridor) and we set up forward of the ball well to take advantage of space with our speedy players (with WHE, Stephenson, De Goey, Varcoe, Wells forward we're unmatched in top speed).

Now these are good but it's taken us a frustratingly long time to get them right, and it doesn't make us world beaters. We have good defensive structures, good buy in, good pressure most of the time (don't get me started on the first quarter of the Dogs game...) and good talent that is getting us different avenues for goal. We're an above average team but we don't have a major dominant point of difference. What we do with our backline is good but you'd be lying if you claimed we have one of the best backlines in the comp. I can still see clear areas for improvement:

- Centre clearances: as Quicky just said before me it's almost laughable how bad we are at centre clearances. If we had a sub par ruck you could excuse it but seriously we double the opposition hit outs, win stoppages around the ground but get killed in the centre every game. It's just a momentum killer and allows the opposition to always stay close and dangerous to us. To put it in perspective, we are 1st in the comp for stoppage clearance differential (how many we win vs the opposition on average) but 16th for centre clearance differential! If we want to be dominant with our midfield personnel this is where we should work hard to improve just like we've improved our kick in set plays.

- Versatility: this isn't from an individual level but from a structure perspective. I don't know how else to put it but we are still 'over-coached'. Our structures have loosened but they are pretty rigid, and Bucks constantly talks about players 'playing a role'. For example Mayne's role in the team as a defensive wingman used to be Aish's role but despite lots of different ways we could go about it we still pick the guy who fits the profile best in this role rather than re-think it. We still think structure first, personnel second and I think with the talent we have we should be bringing more to the table.

In the same vein Peter Moore is right, it's not easy being a tall forward at the Pies. We get goals from our medium forwards but not enough from our talls. We only go to them as a default option when they're already double or triple teamed (Cox's marks come from big packs he runs to, he's very rarely isolated). Now this might be because we don't have the personnel but if we want to go the next level we're going to need more because it's a position that releases pressure on the rest of the team. Either that or we accept and set up differently because the Reid/Cox thing didn't work for me.

Absolute best case scenario for me would be that we solve our clearances issues with better set ups and De Goey going 70/30 in the middle, Elliott taking his spot forward to help generate new goal avenues, and Moore coming back to help our marking game forward. With this we actually start to dominate all aspects of the midfield battle by matching teams both in the contest and on the spread and with the good work of our backline and forward lines we end up an actual threat in finals. But we're not there, it will definitely take some adjusting and thinking from the coaching group.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Here we sit 10 months advanced from when I first started this discussion in a much healthier position! We’ve still had injuries in 2018 (funny no one is playing the injury card anymore), the talent is really the same given the only blokes new from 2017 that have played more than half the season are Stephenson and Murray, we have a clearly defined way of playing now and we seem to know what our best 22 structure is.

Has anyone’s opinion changed? Without reading through the thread I remember a couple of posters in particular that were adamant talent was the issue...

Were I to pinpoint three areas that have turned us around they would be:

1. Speed/ movement
2. A greater spread of guys playing standout games
3. A moretorium on selection roulette

By increasing our speed/ movement we’re better on both sides of the ball in transition and not constantly chopping and changing our 22 has allowed individuals to settle into their roles. The likes of JT, Shaz and Phillips appear to be the greatest beneficiaries. The only guys that have gone out of the 22 this year due to poor form are Brown, Blair and Murray the rest of our changes have been due to injuries i.e. a guy going out due to an injury or being replaced by someone returning from injury.

What does it all mean in the second half of the season? The best I can offer is that we’re well placed. We overpossess still, IMO, which is a potential weakness over the next 8 weeks as the grounds soften up, but as long as we bank the winnable games it would be hard to argue we aren’t finals bound. Talent aye...

It's almost as if being well drilled and coached does make a significant difference to the output of a group of players. Who'dve thought!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

View attachment 405283

oops

 

[barrackers]

While I do like the one solider in one solider out mentality that comes with a fixed role structure I believe there's still some room for tinkering and our centre square setup has the biggest room for improvement. With Pendlebury spending considerably less time on the inside and attending a much reduced number of centre bounces we need a bigger body to compliment our smaller mids. DeGoey helped turn the game after he was shifted into the middle against the dogs, but if he's having an on day up forward we need another option. Thankfully we have both Sier and Wills dominating the twos, so it's just a matter of how to fit them into our senior structure and if they can translate their form to the higher level.

At the half way mark of the season there's still time to make small tweaks to our structure, which may make up the difference between finals contenders and contending for a finals spot. For some perspective - after R11 2010 we sat inside the top 4, one game behind first with 8 wins and 3 losses, but the Leigh Brown role didn't yet exist. Brown didn't play seniors between R5 and R10 (playing 4 VFL games during this period) and wasn't shifted into the secondary ruck role until R13.

Note: In no way am I saying we'll win the flag in 2018 whether some structural tweaks are made or not, rather above example is an illustration that a change/s can make a difference.​

To have any chance of just contending for a finals spot though at the very least we need to maintain our current talent inside the best 22 especially with regards to pace where we lack depth. Preferably we'd increase our talent via the return of currently injured magpies like Aish and Elliott and whether their return is a limiting factor to our 2018 prospects remains to be seen.

Pleasingly though it's now clear that we're on the right track. That we're building something is evident at both levels and I look forward to seeing what that something is whether that be finals this year or the next couple.

 

[Mukesh]

I'm happier about the way we're playing this season than I've been in the past five, but we're still somewhat unproven. We have an experienced line up – we're not one of the young inexperienced team anymore – and we've beaten who we needed to, but outside of the Adelaide game which in retrospect isn't as great a feat as we thought you wouldn't find a style or season-defining win. Maybe that'll come Monday but we're all equally sitting here thinking it might be a reality check instead.

I never thought talent was the issue from a full list perspective, but it certainly helps us to have natural talent like Scharenberg's, Stephenson's, Hoskin Elliott's and De Goey actually playing week in week out. They bring something different than role players or battlers. Injuries are never 100% of an excuse but I'm a believer in the idea that top players are the biggest factor in the way a team plays (more than coaching, role players, buy in etc.) and in some patches of last year we simply didn't have enough talent in our line ups when Pendles, Wells and Elliott were out.

Buy-in also hasn't been the issue since 2013, and it seems to be even better this year with a good spirit seemingly at the club and better on field leadership from the likes of Pendles and Sidey.

System-wise there are some simple things we've got right:
- Continuity in the back 6: defending is a group effort so whilst you can park an amazing goal kicker forward to do his own show, having chemistry in the backline is huge and we've learnt to stick to a core group.
- Forward set up: Every game I attended last year I was angered by the fact that set up 90% of the time with 5 forwards. So conservative and stupid with the strength of our midfield and ruck and the way we go I50. At last and Bucks admitted it in his presser last week we accepted that it wasn't working and we needed to create more space forward and it's made a big difference this year.
- Transition and ball movement: big win for the coaching group on this one, we use to be absolute shite at kick in strategy and ball movement from the opposition turnover. Fast forward and we're not one of the best teams in the competition for it. We're 1st in the comp for scoring from kick-ins and 3rd in the comp for generating an I50 from a defensive 50 chain. We play on a lot more, move the ball in different ways to stay unpredictable (by foot or by hand, boundary or corridor) and we set up forward of the ball well to take advantage of space with our speedy players (with WHE, Stephenson, De Goey, Varcoe, Wells forward we're unmatched in top speed).

Now these are good but it's taken us a frustratingly long time to get them right, and it doesn't make us world beaters. We have good defensive structures, good buy in, good pressure most of the time (don't get me started on the first quarter of the Dogs game...) and good talent that is getting us different avenues for goal. We're an above average team but we don't have a major dominant point of difference. What we do with our backline is good but you'd be lying if you claimed we have one of the best backlines in the comp. I can still see clear areas for improvement:

- Centre clearances: as Quicky just said before me it's almost laughable how bad we are at centre clearances. If we had a sub par ruck you could excuse it but seriously we double the opposition hit outs, win stoppages around the ground but get killed in the centre every game. It's just a momentum killer and allows the opposition to always stay close and dangerous to us. To put it in perspective, we are 1st in the comp for stoppage clearance differential (how many we win vs the opposition on average) but 16th for centre clearance differential! If we want to be dominant with our midfield personnel this is where we should work hard to improve just like we've improved our kick in set plays.

- Versatility: this isn't from an individual level but from a structure perspective. I don't know how else to put it but we are still 'over-coached'. Our structures have loosened but they are pretty rigid, and Bucks constantly talks about players 'playing a role'. For example Mayne's role in the team as a defensive wingman used to be Aish's role but despite lots of different ways we could go about it we still pick the guy who fits the profile best in this role rather than re-think it. We still think structure first, personnel second and I think with the talent we have we should be bringing more to the table.

In the same vein Peter Moore is right, it's not easy being a tall forward at the Pies. We get goals from our medium forwards but not enough from our talls. We only go to them as a default option when they're already double or triple teamed (Cox's marks come from big packs he runs to, he's very rarely isolated). Now this might be because we don't have the personnel but if we want to go the next level we're going to need more because it's a position that releases pressure on the rest of the team. Either that or we accept and set up differently because the Reid/Cox thing didn't work for me.

Absolute best case scenario for me would be that we solve our clearances issues with better set ups and De Goey going 70/30 in the middle, Elliott taking his spot forward to help generate new goal avenues, and Moore coming back to help our marking game forward. With this we actually start to dominate all aspects of the midfield battle by matching teams both in the contest and on the spread and with the good work of our backline and forward lines we end up an actual threat in finals. But we're not there, it will definitely take some adjusting and thinking from the coaching group.

Great analysis... it’s the centre clearances we desperately need to fix... we need an extractor, especially for Grundy. Any idea if our stats differ between Grundy and Cox ?

 

[Vankri]

Great analysis... it’s the centre clearances we desperately need to fix... we need an extractor, especially for Grundy. Any idea if our stats differ between Grundy and Cox ?

Not sure on Cox/Grundy but it wouldn't be a fair comparison when one does 90% of the work and the other is a quick fix when the opposition is already hurt and tired.

With centre clearances the idea of an extractor makes sense. Too often Grundy gets an advantage to the ball, taps it at his feet only for us to get outbodied. Someone with great upper body strength and good vision would fit nicely (that person is Pendles but he can't play that role anymore based on how he's being manage not to be the go to inside mid and playing semi defensive roles on opposition mids). And equally when Grundy tries to mix it up and tap it further often behind him it's often an opposition player cleverly roving it. We haven't defined roles and don't seem to practice running patterns enough which is frustrating because it's an edge we can have on the opposition and it's a set play so the 'easiest' stuff to train for.

But it's also about chemistry, again something we underestimate. We're better this year than last where we used to switch our core midfield group way too many times a game and week by week, but we haven't been able to settle on our #1, #2 and #3 best combinations. My belief is we should go Pendles-Adams-De Goey first up, next rotations in that priority would be Treloar, Sidey, Maynard. It's a tough decision because the biggest 'loser' is Sidey and it means him and Treloar have to find ways to be damaging forward but Sidey exceptional on a wing and with Phillips on one wing and Sidey on another we have a serious edge in running power and can eliminate a weak link in the team in Mayne.

Case in point last week in the fourth quarter we had De Goey spend the majority if his time in the middle, after a goal we went back to the centre and we had one too many mids in there so the players got confused and were all in discussion on whose turn it was and we ended up having Sidey in (and I think Pendles and Treloar) and De Goey exited and ran forward. De Goey probably played a total of 1 and a half quarter max in the middle and ended up with our 3rd most clearances in the game with 6 and the most centre clearances of anyone on the ground with 4. There's a solution to be found there.

 

[Quicky]

Not sure on Cox/Grundy but it wouldn't be a fair comparison when one does 90% of the work and the other is a quick fix when the opposition is already hurt and tired.

With centre clearances the idea of an extractor makes sense. Too often Grundy gets an advantage to the ball, taps it at his feet only for us to get outbodied. Someone with great upper body strength and good vision would fit nicely (that person is Pendles but he can't play that role anymore based on how he's being manage not to be the go to inside mid and playing semi defensive roles on opposition mids). And equally when Grundy tries to mix it up and tap it further often behind him it's often an opposition player cleverly roving it. We haven't defined roles and don't seem to practice running patterns enough which is frustrating because it's an edge we can have on the opposition and it's a set play so the 'easiest' stuff to train for.

But it's also about chemistry, again something we underestimate. We're better this year than last where we used to switch our core midfield group way too many times a game and week by week, but we haven't been able to settle on our #1, #2 and #3 best combinations. My belief is we should go Pendles-Adams-De Goey first up, next rotations in that priority would be Treloar, Sidey, Maynard. It's a tough decision because the biggest 'loser' is Sidey and it means him and Treloar have to find ways to be damaging forward but Sidey exceptional on a wing and with Phillips on one wing and Sidey on another we have a serious edge in running power and can eliminate a weak link in the team in Mayne.

Case in point last week in the fourth quarter we had De Goey spend the majority if his time in the middle, after a goal we went back to the centre and we had one too many mids in there so the players got confused and were all in discussion on whose turn it was and we ended up having Sidey in (and I think Pendles and Treloar) and De Goey exited and ran forward. De Goey probably played a total of 1 and a half quarter max in the middle and ended up with our 3rd most clearances in the game with 6 and the most centre clearances of anyone on the ground with 4. There's a solution to be found there.

I think there's a few elements to the centre clearance issue and you've touched on them.

1. I reckon is Grundy's hit out skills and awareness. If he's hitting his taps too close that can be worked on. He's still very much developing his craft. Are we supporting him enough with appropriate coaching?
2. Is the centre clearance structure. Is Grundy being instructed to tap narrow? A bit like our kick in structure where we were predictable to the opposition I reckon we're the same in the clearances.
3. You said chemistry and it's spot on. Sidebottom is spending more time in there with Pendles in a new role. Maybe they haven't completely found their synergy just yet.
4. Personnel. I reckon we'd love to have De Goey in there. You mentioned it earlier and the obvious fix is to bring in Elliott (when fit) and send De Goey in the middle. Wells is another under utilised resource. I also think there is room for Sier. His form warrants it. I like that he has pace over Wills. But we'd need to be patient with him because he is still very raw. I think Bucks is being a bit conservative here because with Greenwood there is a spot up for grabs there. One is a short term decision, the other is looking a year or two ahead.

 

[Ricky90]

Clearances still hurt us. No idea why we aren't killing it in that part of the ground.

We should play a really defensive set up and lock down as many as we can. Then it becomes a stoppage.

 

[Quicky]

Clearances still hurt us. No idea why we aren't killing it in that part of the ground.

We should play a really defensive set up and lock down as many as we can. Then it becomes a stoppage.

It's one of the reasons that down the line/rushed over the boundary line kick isn't a terrible get out kick for us. While we're terrible at the centre clearances at times, we dominate stoppages in general play. I don't understand why it's so different.

 

[Countrypie]

It's one of the reasons that down the line/rushed over the boundary line kick isn't a terrible get out kick for us. While we're terrible at the centre clearances at times, we dominate stoppages in general play. I don't understand why it's so different.

I reckon it's Grundy's tap work. He over thinks it too much. At around the grounds he can lock arms and wrestle - that suits him. In the centre bounce his taps are really poorly directed. If he could clean that up, he would be unstoppable

 

[Gone Critical]

Great discussion and a really timely part of the season to renew these opinions.

This weekends match I see as a real watershed moment for Collingwood. Win and we have really improved and we pull ourselves out of the ruck fighting for the bottom of the 8. We start to sit that bit higher and become very likely finalists. Lose, especially if we are beaten convincingly, and we really haven't got claims to have changed very much from 2017. Put simply we need a scalp and we need one soon.

I am still of the opinion that talent remains our biggest weakness and also believe we haven't been helped by our injuries this year. Elliott and Moore in particular, two who are both potentially A grade talents, hurt a fair bit. Also the combined loss of Aish, Broomhead, Goldsack, Wells, Fasolo and Reid for significant time has hurt but been covered albeit against teams in the lower part of the ladder. To me we are a middle level team in terms of talent and results so far in 2018 suggest that's true.

There is a chance we are being flattered by out ladder position. The below points are prefaced on the basis of us losing against Melbourne. Win that and the season confirmed as a significant improvement so forget the below.

My concern is we are in a fight for positions 6,7 and 8 with five other teams. NM, PA, GWS, Adel and Hawthorn. If Melbourne win this match I think the top 5 are pretty certain finalists. Include all these teams and we have the top 11 teams in the comp and on playing record we are clearly the worst of the 11 thus far.
Put simply we have played 6 of the bottom 7 teams for 6 wins and we have had 5 matches against teams in the top 11 for 1 win.

Another way to look at our year so far is we have played 9 of the 10 teams not in the 8 currently and only 2 of the current top 8 for no wins. It's clearly the easiest draw thus far of the teams we are contending with and is why we may be being flattered at this point. Our advantage is that our draw gets harder in the 2nd half of the season but not impossibly so. We clearly have an easy draw in 2018 which improves our finals chances a lot. The year thus far has worked the draw even more for us with 4 of the 5 teams we double up on this season Carlton, Brisbane, Freo and Essendon all having poorer than expected seasons.

If we look at the 6 teams from 6th to 11th two really stand out and both have easy runs home so I would be close to writing them down for 2 of the 3 spots on offer. Leaves 4 teams in a battle for eighth. Hawthorn and Port are those two sides. Below I will list how many games theses side have had against top 8 and top 11 sides and how many they have won as a comparison.

Hawthorn 8:4 and 8:4 (i.e played all top 8 sides for 4 wins but no matches against teams 9-11)
Port A 5:3 and 7:4 (i.e played 5 top 8 sides for 3 wins and 7 top 11 sides for 4 wins)
North 5:1 and 7:3
Adelaide 5:2 and 6:2
GWS 5:1 and 6:2
Collingwood 2:0 and 5:1

Hawks don't play a side in the current top 8 for the next 8 rounds and only have 2 matches against top 8 sides for the rest of the season. Fair enough given they have played them all already. Port only have 3 matches left against top 8 sides. We by comparison have 6 matches left against top 8 sides. So lose against Melbourne tomorrow and unless we improve our 2nd half of the season a fair bit it would be a stretch to see us finishing above Hawthorn or Port.

So my summary would be thus far in 2018 we are performing like a mid level talent team. We have beaten the bottom teams, albeit not as convincingly as we would have liked, but largely failed against the teams around us or above us on the ladder.

To show we are genuinely on the march we need that scalp and Monday is the ideal time for this side to step up. Would love to see that and it would also coincide with a demon reality check. Magnificient even if my head says it's a tough ask.

 

[Bard]

Great discussion and a really timely part of the season to renew these opinions.

This weekends match I see as a real watershed moment for Collingwood. Win and we have really improved and we pull ourselves out of the ruck fighting for the bottom of the 8. We start to sit that bit higher and become very likely finalists. Lose, especially if we are beaten convincingly, and we really haven't got claims to have changed very much from 2017. Put simply we need a scalp and we need one soon.

I am still of the opinion that talent remains our biggest weakness and also believe we haven't been helped by our injuries this year. Elliott and Moore in particular, two who are both potentially A grade talents, hurt a fair bit. Also the combined loss of Aish, Broomhead, Goldsack, Wells, Fasolo and Reid for significant time has hurt but been covered albeit against teams in the lower part of the ladder. To me we are a middle level team in terms of talent and results so far in 2018 suggest that's true.

There is a chance we are being flattered by out ladder position. The below points are prefaced on the basis of us losing against Melbourne. Win that and the season confirmed as a significant improvement so forget the below.

My concern is we are in a fight for positions 6,7 and 8 with five other teams. NM, PA, GWS, Adel and Hawthorn. If Melbourne win this match I think the top 5 are pretty certain finalists. Include all these teams and we have the top 11 teams in the comp and on playing record we are clearly the worst of the 11 thus far.
Put simply we have played 6 of the bottom 7 teams for 6 wins and we have had 5 matches against teams in the top 11 for 1 win.

Another way to look at our year so far is we have played 9 of the 10 teams not in the 8 currently and only 2 of the current top 8 for no wins. It's clearly the easiest draw thus far of the teams we are contending with and is why we may be being flattered at this point. Our advantage is that our draw gets harder in the 2nd half of the season but not impossibly so. We clearly have an easy draw in 2018 which improves our finals chances a lot. The year thus far has worked the draw even more for us with 4 of the 5 teams we double up on this season Carlton, Brisbane, Freo and Essendon all having poorer than expected seasons.

If we look at the 6 teams from 6th to 11th two really stand out and both have easy runs home so I would be close to writing them down for 2 of the 3 spots on offer. Leaves 4 teams in a battle for eighth. Hawthorn and Port are those two sides. Below I will list how many games theses side have had against top 8 and top 11 sides and how many they have won as a comparison.

Hawthorn 8:4 and 8:4 (i.e played all top 8 sides for 4 wins but no matches against teams 9-11)
Port A 5:3 and 7:4 (i.e played 5 top 8 sides for 3 wins and 7 top 11 sides for 4 wins)
North 5:1 and 7:3
Adelaide 5:2 and 6:2
GWS 5:1 and 6:2
Collingwood 2:0 and 5:1

Hawks don't play a side in the current top 8 for the next 8 rounds and only have 2 matches against top 8 sides for the rest of the season. Fair enough given they have played them all already. Port only have 3 matches left against top 8 sides. We by comparison have 6 matches left against top 8 sides. So lose against Melbourne tomorrow and unless we improve our 2nd half of the season a fair bit it would be a stretch to see us finishing above Hawthorn or Port.

So my summary would be thus far in 2018 we are performing like a mid level talent team. We have beaten the bottom teams, albeit not as convincingly as we would have liked, but largely failed against the teams around us or above us on the ladder.

To show we are genuinely on the march we need that scalp and Monday is the ideal time for this side to step up. Would love to see that and it would also coincide with a demon reality check. Magnificient even if my head says it's a tough ask.

I think it'll be OK if we lose by 4~5 goals. If we get belted it's warning signs, but a reasonable loss and it won't hit our confidence too hard, and statistically won't count us out of anything.

 

[Gone Critical]

I think it'll be OK if we lose by 4~5 goals. If we get belted it's warning signs, but a reasonable loss and it won't hit our confidence too hard, and statistically won't count us out of anything.

Agree won't count us out but we do need to start beating some teams around us if we are going to see an appreciable improvement this season. Doesn't have to be tomorrow but would be fantastic if it was because it would really change the complexion of our season.

If we lose this weekend would be very hard for us to hold off Hawks and Port for the rest of the season which pits us in a 1:4 fight for 8th place and finals.

 

[Hardas]

Where do we improve?

I think there's room to get better at the clearances. We get beaten in there more often than we should with that midfield and Grundy's dominance. Why do we get beaten so often at the centre clearances? Is it clearance structure? Or do we need another extractor in there?

We are still getting hammered by injuries. We've seen some of our guys returning straight to AFL which I reckon is a step up from where we were. But only a modest improvement. Still too many key players are injured. I'd love to have seen more of our best 22. Do we stick with the new fitness team?

We still need a quality key forward!

The centre clearance issue is long-standing, and I think largely personnel-driven.
Grundy is improving at hit outs to advantage, but our first-choice mids are not good at neutralising stoppages going to the opposition, leading to too many 'easy' or quality centre breaks, as some are not especially defensive-minded or quick off the mark (eg. 10 & 22).
In contrast, we tend to do well at other stoppages, where more players can support the main mids and Grjndy tends to become more of a factor in winning or neutralising.them.
It's why De Goey or Adams (or potentially Wills) should at least start in there at each bounce.

 

[jonbe54]

I think one factor needing to be taken into account with us not having 'buried' teams this season has been in game injuries reducing our bench.

 

[nahnah]

Continuity in the playing list has played a huge part in our success. We didn’t go crazy in the off-season by bringing in every god damn available player and cutting half the list. We hit the draft well and made the most of our rookie picks it seems.

 

[Vicky Park]

For me our improvement is coming from continuity, chemistry, high functioning defence, good and very good players getting to the magical 50 games, new assistant coaches, other influential new personnel, and the senior coach seeming more relaxed and flexible.

I'm holding my breath until after the bye, hoping and praying we are able to maintain this improvement.

It goes without saying that having Moore and Elliott available would be enormous for us; I'd add Aish to that mix too.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I reckon it's Grundy's tap work. He over thinks it too much. At around the grounds he can lock arms and wrestle - that suits him. In the centre bounce his taps are really poorly directed. If he could clean that up, he would be unstoppable

I've noticed that our mids can give up front position easily at the centre bounce. It's ok to be standing in front of beside your opponent before the able is bounce but what happens when the ball is in the air has me scratching my head. Sometimes it looks like the initiative is being stolen too easily and the opposition are getting to the drop of the ball first.

Keeping an eye on the bounce and match day threads, I see comments about Grundy's tap work being shite and yet I've seen the same play as a mids issue. E.g Treloar and even Pendles letting players body them out or too laconic on consecutive occasions.

Sam Newman said something interesting. He noted that it was the ruckman's responsibility to hit the ball to a spot and the mids' responsibilty to get to that spot. Just another way of looking at it. Not saying Grundy is blameless but we do need to look at what our mids are doing as well.