Analysis System, buy in and talent

[doppleganger]

lol what? Hawthorn have been decimated by injuries all year, were pretty much the 2nd worst team in the league after 11 rounds and with the throwing around of their side have pulled themselves out of the mire

The Hawks started 0-4 including copping consecutive 80 point drubbings with strong teams on paper.

JOM, Cyril, Frawley, Stratton, Gibson, Birchall all those guys were playing when they were getting pumped.

They have got better after actually introducing kids and having to try and protect their young defense.

So if the talent was there, it was either buy-in or system that let Hawthorn down early in the year.

A team like Sydney started 0-6 because they didn't have the talent on the park early. But have improved as the talent came back.

If people are giving Collingwood's list an 8 for talent, I wonder how they rate the talent of a team like Adelaide?

 

[doppleganger]

Carltons talent isn't terrible.
It's young.
Debuted countless young players in 2017, and garnered I think 6 rising star nominations.
We've debuted one young player, while occupying the bottom third of the ladder.
Such a different outlook to the future by Carlton.
90% chance to flag before us. Couldn't say that at the end of 2011, but the Captains pick has put us right in that frame.

Yes talent fluctuates from year to year. The hope being that if investing in the draft and youth that it will continue to improve...but it doesn't always work that way, as we have found out.

My point is that plenty seem to think that Bolton is doing plenty right at Carlton, his players are also buying what he is selling. So for systems and buy-in, would expect Carlton to rate highly say a 7 for each.

So if that is the case their 2017 talent would have to be terrible if they might end up getting another spoon which such a great coach at the helm.

It is a good thread topic, could bring some interesting discussion points.

 

[doppleganger]

Adams will handball more and stop switch kicking it under a better coach

Well his HB to Kick ratio is heading in that direction. His kicking and decision making from an overall level is improving.

But he has an occasional game where he is off, and makes a few costly mistakes.

I am clearly think skill errors are more reflective of a lack of talent than lack of buy-in with the coach.

 

[Woods List Clogger]

Not so sure that the high turnover is Bucks' fault.

• Balmey moved because he was sidelined by the Gubby appointment - that was Ed and Pert's call
• Rocket took the Suns job which was understandable because he wanted on-field focus not a football manager's role.

I'm happy to be corrected but I can't recall a FM leaving because they couldn't work with Bucks. Happy for you to challenge that.

As for the asst coaches it's convenient to be revisionist - I recall there were a lot of calls for Hart, Lappin to be removed on BF.

For the record, I'm not saying Bucks is easy to work with (neither is Clarko or Lyon from what I gather). All I'm saying is that having a senior right hand man focused on mentoring him may have helped his development and man-management skills.

How do you explain Balme, every coach he has worked with their team improves with his input........ except Buckley.Just look at how Hardwick is going.

 

[magpies42]

How would we as a collective rate our club in those three areas? IMO, they are the three drivers of success in modern footy.

Adelaide have all three covered in spades with their amazing ball movement, talent on every line and they speak about Pyke as some sort of demi god. Brisbane have a fantastic system in place now under Fagan, but lack the talent to move out of the lower reaches of the ladder. Despite that we've seen a rapid turnaround in form over the past 12 weeks once they started to really buy in to his philosophy. Richmond probably lack the talent to be at the top end, but their 'guns n rookies' strategy is really working with the buy in they have of an improved system. Does it get any more talented than GWS? However until recently I would have questioned the buy in to the system. The system itself is strong yet they sometimes play like 22 individuals that just want to do their own thing.

I could continue like this for each club throughout the league because they're such great indicators of a teams quality. This brings me to my ratings of Collingwood.

Talent: I don't see us all that far behind Geelong and Richmond if not on par. All three have strengths and weaknesses, but in order to be as successful as the more talented teams the other areas need to be at a high level. 7.5/10.

Buy in: Outwardly it appears the playing group love the coach so who am I to argue with them. How else do you lose 11 games throughout a season by an average of only 19 points? It's also the white knight in Buckley's bid for a contract extension. 9/10.

System: Hmm what do you say about the Collingwood system that hasn't been said before? The answer is nothing. Anyone with a knowledge of the game has picked apart our issues over the past five years. Until it's sorted we'll continue to languish in the no mans land area of the ladder. 4/10.

I'm clearly of the view that there's enough talent there to not have been out of the finals race as early as we were, but I'm sure others will see it differently so what can be done to further nurture the talent we already have? What do people believe can be done to improve our system regardless of who's in charge moving forward? Is my POV even relevant to why we're currently so mediocre?

The game plan is based pressure, winning the ball and then not turning it over. It can't be picked apart by your opponents...unless of course you turn it over yourself.

This is why I am constantly harping on about our strength being our weakness. We need improvement in decision making and ball use in transition and into 50. Our midfield was ranked first at the start of the season, they have been apalling imo.

 

[magpie90]

This has been my favourite read on Big Footy for a long time. Everyone's comments are fair and valid. Thanks to all for their input.

 

[jatsad]

Just reading everyone's thoughts and a lot of good points are being made.

I do however one underlying concern.

There is the belief, whether overstated or fact, that the players love Buckley and have bought in.

If that is the case, and that's great, then doesn't that mean that the coach and his game style/system is clearly at fault. If the players are doing what Buckley is asking, then that is the only conclusion.

In my mind, a game plan is based on the strengths and weaknesses of your team. If you have good runners, you build the plan around a mark, play on and run system.
If your players are good users of the ball, build the game plan around precise kicking, ala Hawthorn.

That may be a bit high level, but you get what I mean.

Collingwood are not a great kicking team, that is a known FACT.

Why on Sunday was the game plan built around precise kicking, that at times was embarrassing to watch?
The more short sideways, backward, stop, start kicks is only one mistake away from disaster. And there were plenty of those.

Why can they play breathtaking football against Geelong, a win, GWS, should have been a win, yet then revert to this rubbish?

This comes down to coaching, in my mind.

 

[DaVe86]

How would we as a collective rate our club in those three areas? IMO, they are the three drivers of success in modern footy.

Adelaide have all three covered in spades with their amazing ball movement, talent on every line and they speak about Pyke as some sort of demi god. Brisbane have a fantastic system in place now under Fagan, but lack the talent to move out of the lower reaches of the ladder. Despite that we've seen a rapid turnaround in form over the past 12 weeks once they started to really buy in to his philosophy. Richmond probably lack the talent to be at the top end, but their 'guns n rookies' strategy is really working with the buy in they have of an improved system. Does it get any more talented than GWS? However until recently I would have questioned the buy in to the system. The system itself is strong yet they sometimes play like 22 individuals that just want to do their own thing.

I could continue like this for each club throughout the league because they're such great indicators of a teams quality. This brings me to my ratings of Collingwood.

Talent: I don't see us all that far behind Geelong and Richmond if not on par. All three have strengths and weaknesses, but in order to be as successful as the more talented teams the other areas need to be at a high level. 7.5/10.

Buy in: Outwardly it appears the playing group love the coach so who am I to argue with them. How else do you lose 11 games throughout a season by an average of only 19 points? It's also the white knight in Buckley's bid for a contract extension. 9/10.

System: Hmm what do you say about the Collingwood system that hasn't been said before? The answer is nothing. Anyone with a knowledge of the game has picked apart our issues over the past five years. Until it's sorted we'll continue to languish in the no mans land area of the ladder. 4/10.

I'm clearly of the view that there's enough talent there to not have been out of the finals race as early as we were, but I'm sure others will see it differently so what can be done to further nurture the talent we already have? What do people believe can be done to improve our system regardless of who's in charge moving forward? Is my POV even relevant to why we're currently so mediocre?

I think that's a fair post. I think the buy-in is there, and the talent is reasonable, but the system is poor.

I'd love to be internal. Some games I leave thinking we are poorly coached, and others I leave thinking that the playing list just don't follow basic instruction.

I also reckon a lot of our players aren't football smart sometimes.

Ben Reid took a mark in the pocket on his preferred left side, and went back 15 metres off the mark to do a snap around his body. Even a newbie to the game would know that it is better to stay closer to the man on the mark to limit the angle. The further you are out with a snap kick, the harder it is to make it.

So perhaps our 'game-plan' is just too complex for a very basic football team. I reckon we have played our best when we play a more man-on-man style and we have even numbers over the field. Once we start zoning or trying something more complex, we just look confused. This was evident against Port Adelaide this week. Buckley clearly ordered a directive to maintain the ball and spread the Port zone. The players just couldn't make it work. Perhaps we just need to throw away the complexity, and just play a man on man style of game. We play our best when the intensity is up and we are winning contests.

 

[Lockyer24]

2/10 system, 9/10 buy in, 5/10 talent

 

[Greening Magic]

I think that's a fair post. I think the buy-in is there, and the talent is reasonable, but the system is poor.

I'd love to be internal. Some games I leave thinking we are poorly coached, and others I leave thinking that the playing list just don't follow basic instruction.

I also reckon a lot of our players aren't football smart sometimes.

Ben Reid took a mark in the pocket on his preferred left side, and went back 15 metres off the mark to do a snap around his body. Even a newbie to the game would know that it is better to stay closer to the man on the mark to limit the angle. The further you are out with a snap kick, the harder it is to make it.

So perhaps our 'game-plan' is just too complex for a very basic football team. I reckon we have played our best when we play a more man-on-man style and we have even numbers over the field. Once we start zoning or trying something more complex, we just look confused. This was evident against Port Adelaide this week. Buckley clearly ordered a directive to maintain the ball and spread the Port zone. The players just couldn't make it work. Perhaps we just need to throw away the complexity, and just play a man on man style of game. We play our best when the intensity is up and we are winning contests.

Strategy going into the Port game was almost going to be the most interesting aspect.
Port have slaughtered us previously by playing numbers behind the ball and then using 'slingshot' football going forward into space. This is effective against slow teams like us. Man on man against them means crowded forward line for us and open space for them. This suits their speed advantage more than us.
I think that leaves 2 options, either hold your numbers back with each team players extra numbers back and turn it into low scoring sh1t fight, or attempt what Buckley tried on Sunday.
Buckley tried to draw Ports extra numbers up the ground by utilising short kicking going forward, if it works early it forces Port to change their set up as the game unfolds. If it fails then Port can remain with their game plan. Our lack of skill allowed Port to do just that.
Was it worth a try? In my mind it was. Very similar to what we did against Sydney early in the game to give us a flying start.
Did it succeed? Nup.
Was it poor strategy or poor execution? I'd say the later.
Should that strategy have been employed with our low skill team? Now there's the debate. I'd rather try and fail than play 'Ross Lyon' football, others obviously wouldn't. If your in the latter category then you think it was poor strategy.
And so the argument goes on.

 

[GreekLunatic]

If we get a new game plan and not going side by side like a crab we could make
Finals

 

[loki04]

Totally agree with your ratings. I think our talent and endeavour should put us in the middle of the 8, but we're terribly coached.

I think it's too simplistic to say we have the talent, especially to be a genuine flag threat. I'd say we have talent in specific areas (like hardworking NQR grunt and role players, Ruck and general mid mix) but are severly lacking in other departments (genuine KPPs and outside pacey class or x-factor types and genuine match winner/or momentum swinging types).
Our kicking woes is not that of *talented* team, adding some of what we lack could be the balancer to change this rating from mediocre to good. A few perennially injured players (Sinclair Wells Reid Varcoe) also need to be drafted cover for nthing coming through under neath for many of them.

Would have us a 6.5 rather then 7.5, if 5 is considered average talent ie 9th-11th teams..

Think some teams are in a lucky window atm where there isn't really a genuine 3-4 dominant teams allowing middle of the road sides increased premiership chances, Richmond being one of these who imo need a *Dogs* like UMP love and things to fall their way to win it.
They benefit greatly by having a genuine match winner in the 22 in Martin and then a semi match winning fwd on his day in Reiwoldt with an AA quality FB in Rance.
They have genuine pace so can rebound quick and score fast when in momentum phase (each team has them, collingwood has been horrible converting our chances in these phases kicking too many points and leaving the door ajar too often again pointing to the lack of talented finishers on the list and high hardworking grunt types). Even our new Marquee player in Treloar is very very haphazard when going by foot.

System is both good and bad imo, clearly works vs some teams while others clearly have very good counter strategies that the team and Buckley has struggled to overcome.
I think we lack any resemblance of forward entry system ir ball movement off the HB line into the f50. It is either slow and non honouring leads or it is quick and haphazard, the forward line structure and system is shambles and has been a point of weakness since Buckley took over also turned over most assistants from this LINE.

Think our center set up could use tweaking and allow Treloar to be "breaking" more often plus cover the defensive spread better. Better tap work from brodie to make use of when he "wins" taps stop the deadpanning at the feet and direct it to moving mids.

Defence clearly lack a player for that big forward (however Dunn and Goldsack have performed reasonably well) I think having the 197cm McClarty be able to hold down FB would be prefferable in the long term hopefully he continues to develop. I think we can cover having that Reid type CHB (Lever) through having quality disposal and intercept types on the HBFs Howe and Schaz/Langdon.
Also lack genuine pacey lock down small fwd that can stick to task ALL game ie on Fantasia's of the world.
Think we lack genuine running backs that break the lines split open zones and can also finish by foot.

Talent 6.5
System 6.5
Buy in 8
Depth 5

 

[loki04]

Just reading everyone's thoughts and a lot of good points are being made.

I do however one underlying concern.

There is the belief, whether overstated or fact, that the players love Buckley and have bought in.

If that is the case, and that's great, then doesn't that mean that the coach and his game style/system is clearly at fault. If the players are doing what Buckley is asking, then that is the only conclusion.

In my mind, a game plan is based on the strengths and weaknesses of your team. If you have good runners, you build the plan around a mark, play on and run system.
If your players are good users of the ball, build the game plan around precise kicking, ala Hawthorn.

That may be a bit high level, but you get what I mean.

Collingwood are not a great kicking team, that is a known FACT.

Why on Sunday was the game plan built around precise kicking, that at times was embarrassing to watch?
The more short sideways, backward, stop, start kicks is only one mistake away from disaster. And there were plenty of those.

Why can they play breathtaking football against Geelong, a win, GWS, should have been a win, yet then revert to this rubbish?

This comes down to coaching, in my mind.

Is there belief in his systems fully or partially? or just a "love" for their coach regardless?

One thing to "play" for the coach another to have 100% buy in and belief in the way he wants you to play.

SO when things start going pair shaped DO we actually stick to the plan ?

Alot of times this year I have heard (players and coach) say : we just went away from the way we want to play! System breakdown.


This tells me there is partial buy in but when things start going awry the little man inside their heads starts having them play individual footy or they genuinely don't know what they are meant to do in each scenario!

 

[doodles98]

Talent 7/10. When your system fails, inevitably that will impact on people's assessment of the talent of your playing group... And vice versa to be fair. I don't believe we are a list who are so inefficient and unskilled when it comes to disposing of the footy. The lack of cohesion and understanding, the lack of run and spread at times, the lack of key forward targets, the exhausting gameplan, these things will all conspire to make a team look like a bunch of turnover merchants. Adams would instantly become a much more "talented" player if he was coached to play within his limitations and handball more and NEVER centre kick into the corridor.

System 3\10. Our system is all about midfield. Our recruiting has all been about midfield. I am fine with that. Dominant contested ball midfield, deep midfield usually = success as long as you have adequacy in defence and attack and a system that works to bring them together cohesively. And that last bit is what we don't have.
At times, Buckley's defensive structures and tactics have been some of the worst I have ever seen from any team ever. The debacle of our defense early last year was highly embarrassing. It has been noticeably better this year but still a weakness.
The forward line has continually seemed too static and without any inate understanding of what their teammates upfield are doing, it has continually been lacking penetration and efficiency, and does not defend the transition well enough.

Buy in 6.5\10.
The players have shown some pretty decent consistency of effort this year. They've kept battling hard most games. To me though they don't play as a united cohesive unit with a great team bond and ethos. The effort early in the year was disappointing though in terms of a defensive effort. Our midfield got a hiding in the media for lack of defensive running and tackling... then the very next game against Sydney they came out and got unbelievable tackle numbers.. Sidey got 10 that game I think! That got me worried about buy-in. Our players only responded and found the motivation after they got named and shamed in the media. They seem to me to be a bunch of self motivated professional footballers who take pride in their performance and we get a natural buy in from that.
We have no identifiable brand to our footy and the intangible of a truly bonded team is missing somehow. That said, it's hard to know if this is a system or buy in issue because they can both manifest the same way in a lack of evident cohesion. Belief is part of buy in too. We let so many games slip after being in winnable positions late it makes me question the belief in the team.

 

[loki04]

So people think the talent on the list is in the top 6 of the AFL? Giving a 7 plus rating would say yes.

I'd say our talent is about on par with 7th to 12th placed sides.

While game style being taxing will certainly have an impact on a players ability to kick the ball under fatigue it doesn't explain how in games we have been diabolical by foot very early in the first quarter!

Imo we have a lot of players capable of getting the ball or playing a role but not a lot of those same players use it particularly well or to the right option.

Sticks out like a sore thumb when a an unfit and slightly *plump* Wells comes into the team and makes them all look stupid, under the same conditions (worse as he is clearly not as fit as he'd like to be).

Not all the blame for errant disposal can be found through our system, I'd say a fair chunk of it can be at the *type* we have recruited.

 

[Gone Critical]

Talent is the one perhaps hardest to gauge and potentially the hardest to fix. Still the differences between lists now has contracted so we could move up with some good pick ups and a few current players stepping up a level or 2.

Overall I think we have one of the poorer lists quality wise and probably sit in the 12-14 range. Reflects pretty closely with our ladder position. We lack top end class. We probably have 2 players in the top 50 and both of those, Pendles and Treloar would be 25-50 now. We lack KPs players severely, our mids are going to drop away as Pendles and Wells decline and we still lack good small backs and a quick, elusive, X factor forward. Kirby shows some promise. Our kids coming through are very so so once you take Moore and DeGoey out of the equation. Will take some good trading and drafting work to fix that but if we get that right we can improve quickly. Its a pretty big if though

Bucks is I suspect a so so coach at best. Love the bloke and his effort but not sure he is the man. Suspect he will get another try in trhe absence of a better proven option.

Buy in is good and the reason why Bucks again isnt an absolute no

 

[Scodog10]

Could you clarify what you mean by system please. Game plan or something more?

It's a real broad term isn't it! The way I like to describe it is that there's three phases of footy. You have it, they have it and it's in dispute.

In this discussion I'm primarily referring to what we aim to do across those three phases. I think it could be applied in any number of areas of the club too, but my intent with the discussion was on field in terms of how we play.

Fantastic stuff swoop42 I really enjoyed reading your post.

I can't think of 4 teams with 6-7 elite players.

No team has that much talent. Not even GWS have 6-7 elite players by position. The AFL system is designed to prevent it!

To be at the pointy end of the talent ladder a team only requires 3-4 elite players in the right positions. It's the support cast that determines a clubs depth of talent that separates the winners and losers.

 

[jackcass]

They took less marks inside 50 the next week against Port Adelaide in an 84 point victory.

We smashed them in contested balls won.

We smashed them in contested marks.

They drew the game because our defenders are told to stand in the wrong position and our coaching team can't adapt or counter on the fly.

Or maybe the players lack the cohesiveness and on-field leadership to implement those sort of changes on the run.

There aren't a lot of defensive variations across all teams and the good sides move seamlessly from 1 style to the other within games.

 

[jackcass]

As you said in a later post our defensive structures need some work, however the other issue is while Goldsack and Dunn battle hard both are undersized. It was crazy getting rid of both Brown and Frost especially since we refuse to play Keeffe in defence. One of Brown or Frost should have been retained even if it was just for half a dozen games where the right matchup existed.

Brown was offered a contract but opted to exercise his FA rights.

 

[jackcass]

An interesting take. Skill errors not indicative of talent?

Didak was an elite ball user, Adams isn't. Adams having some games where he has some horrendous TOs for mine is a talent issue not a buy-in problem to Bucks methods.

MM had the Blues sitting 1-7 with a % of 65 and had copped 4 10 goal beatings when he was sacked after R8. That is putrid. There was no buy-in to his system.

What is your take on the Hawks this year? Some of the sides they put on the park early were overflowing with talent, yet they copped beatings....

What about the Doggies, and they've apparently got a coaching genius.

 

[jackcass]

How do you explain Balme, every coach he has worked with their team improves with his input........ except Buckley.Just look at how Hardwick is going.

Hard to judge given 2015 and 2016 seasons were plagued by injuries.

 

[DaVe86]

I think we have talent on the list, but probably not a good balance or depth when it comes to KPP's. There really isn't anything coming through to be excited about. McLarty maybe.

The problem is that KPP's are the hardest area to fix. So how we fix that is going to be the most difficult challenge.

If we can get another key back and another key forward, we could be very well placed. Even if we score one really good forward, and we can then move Reid back, it may solve the problem....or get a gun back to leave Reid forward.

 

[jackcass]

Just reading everyone's thoughts and a lot of good points are being made.

I do however one underlying concern.

There is the belief, whether overstated or fact, that the players love Buckley and have bought in.

If that is the case, and that's great, then doesn't that mean that the coach and his game style/system is clearly at fault. If the players are doing what Buckley is asking, then that is the only conclusion.

In my mind, a game plan is based on the strengths and weaknesses of your team. If you have good runners, you build the plan around a mark, play on and run system.
If your players are good users of the ball, build the game plan around precise kicking, ala Hawthorn.

That may be a bit high level, but you get what I mean.

Collingwood are not a great kicking team, that is a known FACT.

Why on Sunday was the game plan built around precise kicking, that at times was embarrassing to watch?
The more short sideways, backward, stop, start kicks is only one mistake away from disaster. And there were plenty of those.

Why can they play breathtaking football against Geelong, a win, GWS, should have been a win, yet then revert to this rubbish?

This comes down to coaching, in my mind.

I don't claim to be any more than a mug punter and make no claim toward tactical genius but to me a system and/or gameplan that allows a team to get 50 points up against the premiership favorites by half time can't be all that flawed. You can go to other games throughout this season and see similar periods of dominance. What's lacking is consistency across 4 quarters. I think that comes with chemistry.

In terms of talent, I think where at about 6/10 but with scope for improvement as some of the key kids develop and move to B+ - A grade. Need a couple of them to push into elite categories. I think our age profile is still off the mark but improved with the addition of WHE and return of Thomas and Keeffe. See Wells, Dunn, and Mayne as short term papering over profile cracks. Think we have too many NQR players who I can't see improving greatly. Think Phillips, Schade, Crocker, Oxley and Smith, hopefully they can prove me wrong. Then I think we have a cluster of players who for a variety of reasons haven't come on as you would have hoped when drafted, think Scharenberg, Broomhead, Langdon, Ramsay, Wills, Sinclair and Aish all of whom project as being at least B grade talent.

In terms of buy-in, I'd see this as the strongest aspect at at least 8/10.

I think equally as important as the 3 nominated criteria are the intangibles such as chemistry and cohesiveness, and luck. We seem to be well down on both.

 

[loki04]

The biggest reason we get burned is accuracy

Accuracy in goal kicking

Accuracy in passing

Accuracy kills and we get killed because we arnt accurate enough.

Talent issue. Highly talented in some aspects of play, but major let down in the talent of kicking at goal or to a teammates advantage. Elite disposal has never been high on Hines attribute priority list.

 

[doodles98]

Talent issue. Highly talented in some aspects of play, but major let down in the talent of kicking at goal or to a teammates advantage. Elite disposal has never been high on Hines attribute priority list.

Our forward efficiency has been woeful. Putting that down to talent deficiency does not stack up. Take our first choice forwards this year: Elliot, highly talented, great kick and finisher. Fasolo, highly talented, great Kick normally but has had the yips, Moore, highly talented, normally a great kick for goal.. has also had the yips, Reid, highly talented, great Kick, DeGoey, highly talented and a decent kick.. Then there's Blair... Moving on quickly..

That is a lot of talent in our forward line actually and a lot of guys you would call talented when it comes to kicking the footy.