| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Shareholders get a chance for annual meetings etc - why not the members of Collingwood?
Somewhere between Wayne's article highlighting our promising youth/potential and injury woes and Barrett's points re poor mature age recruits and on-field results... is probably about right.
The declining crowds has a lot to do with bad scheduling and can/should be fixed up next year to an extent - of course if the team loses more than they win and get regularly thrashed the numbers will drop off - it has always been that way for every club and in most sports!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
 |
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | I agree that the carnage from injuries is a terrible concern which must be resolved. Over the next few weeks/months, we must find the solution to this. And I have no doubt that a solution will be found, because no other club had an injury rate like Collingwood's this year. Therefore, a clear, scientific reason for it must exist and I have faith that the necessary specialists will be called in to ascertain the causes and remedy them.
I think that the terrible rate of injuries was a major driving force behind our disappointing form in the second half of the season. Not just because stars were missing, but because of the consequent instability of our team, the exhaustion of young players forced to take on too much responsibility, and growing lack of confidence which made it more and more difficult to play well. All other clubs can claim to see glimmering of hope from young players, but there was no other team this year that threw so many of their young players into battle for such an extended series of games as Collingwood. Our young players have matured at an accelerated rate compared with other teams due to dire necessity imposed by our injury list.
I think that the decline in ladder position will be arrested just through the process of rectifying our training program. |
I seem to recall Freo and the Bombers a few years back having a absurd number of soft tissue injuries too...I recall a match the bombers played where they lost two players to season ending knee injuries in the first quater, followed by two other soft tissue injuries in the second.
So i don't think our situation is completely without preceedent. What will be telling is 'how' we tackle this issue. In as much as Buckley has stated it was the training load...yet he still feels we are not fit enough to battle the top sides in the comp....So isn't this then a 'dammed if you do' 'dammed if you don't' situation? Do we continue to ramp up the training load in order to get competative proformances (yet run the risk of player break downs) or do we pull back to allow for natural player development and accept current ladder postion and the status quo? |
|
|
|
|
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^^ Agree derkd the issue is the club has a large supporter base screaming about our lack of competitiveness with the top teams but also about our spate of injuries. Unfortunately for our players to compete with the top teams our fitness base needs to increase dramatically and to do that means increasing the training load. Now this can be done more gradually but the result of that is a squad that won't be a contender for a long time (and how many already complaining about our current ladder position will wait quietly while that occurs?) or we really step up the workload now, accepting the inherent risk of increased injury to players, and make ourselves competitive in the next few years.
As you say "damned if they do, damned if they don't".
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ken Hinkley one a final in first year and was out the next week. Bucks made a Preliminary despite the JMAC issue. So the Hinley argument doesn't stack up.
_________________
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | ^^^ Agree derkd the issue is the club has a large supporter base screaming about our lack of competitiveness with the top teams but also about our spate of injuries. Unfortunately for our players to compete with the top teams our fitness base needs to increase dramatically and to do that means increasing the training load. Now this can be done more gradually but the result of that is a squad that won't be a contender for a long time (and how many already complaining about our current ladder position will wait quietly while that occurs?) or we really step up the workload now, accepting the inherent risk of increased injury to players, and make ourselves competitive in the next few years.
As you say "damned if they do, damned if they don't". |
In some senses (and i feel for Buckley in this regard) the club both board level and Eddie have not helped...coming out in the media and saying "we are going to play finals for the next three years, oh and win a grand final in that time too" is always dangerous....you open the whole club to criticism and you add undue expectation on the playing list. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^^^ Especially since Buckley's recruiting strategy and team-selections since day 1 suggest that he thought the team needed to be significantly changed. In his first home and away game in charge, he picked 6 players who had played 6 or less games, including 3 first-gamers. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| inxs88 wrote: | | Ken Hinkley one a final in first year and was out the next week. Bucks made a Preliminary despite the JMAC issue. So the Hinley argument doesn't stack up. |
I'm sort of suspect on that, we were still using the MM system for the most part, and to be honest we were pretty lucky to get through to the GF - we only did because the boys were programmed on the system - imho. Port will smash Richmond this weekend.
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Barrett fails to understand that the step backwards is intentional. All the slightly underperforming recruits (the hopes for them were never all that great) have done is reduce our competitiveness in the short term, but that is very much a side issue. The main game since 2012 has been list rebuilding, and the slightly underperforming recruits have only helped that end, so it works as a positive for us in the more important medium to longer term.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Barrett fails to understand that the step backwards is intentional. All the slightly underperforming recruits (the hopes for them were never all that great) have done is reduce our competitiveness in the short term, but that is very much a side issue. The main game since 2012 has been list rebuilding, and the slightly underperforming recruits have only helped that end, so it works as a positive for us in the more important medium to longer term. |
Teams never go 'backwards' intentionally, and from previous words and view points from those directly involved we know that its a fact that they didn't envisage how backwards we'd go... but on a positive note, I do feel we have with this 'backwards' step unintentionally found some new found positives, in the like of Langdon and Frost, etc... so even though it's bad, it's not all bad.
I think our biggest problem is that while we may eventually develop a much stronger list for the future, and other teams like the Hawthorn and Geelong start to semi fall by the wayside, GWS and GCS should also start peaking. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully we can recruit ok over the next season or two and grab some extra strength and experience by poaching a player or two from some other teams.
And then of course we still have the 'possible' Buckley problem, and where that road will eventually lead...
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Brown26
Joined: 14 Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think the notion that you don't call a "fan forum" if you don't have a problem is incorrect - you call a fan forum if there is a perceived problem, or to try to prevent one, and with our supporters we could well finish second and we still may need one! Or win the premiership but not by 10 goals, so we'd still need a fan forum to explain what Eddie and Buckley are going to do about it!
Surely no one can doubt that if Reid and Brown and Freeman and Scharenberg and Karnezis etc were fit for the second half of the year - instead of still being injured - and if Maxwell, Adams et al didn't get injured - we would've played finals. Remember we were top four mid way through the year. We still wouldn't have won the flag, but we wouldn't be having this discussion...
- Ben |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Barrett fails to understand that the step backwards is intentional. All the slightly underperforming recruits (the hopes for them were never all that great) have done is reduce our competitiveness in the short term, but that is very much a side issue. The main game since 2012 has been list rebuilding, and the slightly underperforming recruits have only helped that end, so it works as a positive for us in the more important medium to longer term. |
Teams never go 'backwards' intentionally, and from previous words and view points from those directly involved we know that its a fact that they didn't envisage how backwards we'd go... but on a positive note, I do feel we have with this 'backwards' step unintentionally found some new found positives, in the like of Langdon and Frost, etc... so even though it's bad, it's not all bad. |
Yeah they do. Once a decline starts a brave club will accelerate it. Cycles are inevitable, the quicker you bring on the down period the quicker you can get out of it. Hawthorn purposely going backwards by trading out their older players brought on their current success.
We could have hung around by keeping some of the players we let go (and I include Thomas in that), but chose to top up with cheap FAs who mostly would not be around for long and focus on the future by being more active in the draft.
As I said we wanted to remain competitive and did not expect to fall as far as we have, but our main goal was to replenish the list, staying competitive was secondary to that.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
gurugeoff
Joined: 09 Oct 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Decent article, i was thinking myself that we were becoming a bit 'irrelevant' towards the end of the season.
Our injuries are overstated. It was only the last couple of weeks where we were getting multiple injuries in the same match.
Against Brisbane, we were well already well and truly cooked before Beams and Cloke went off. |
|
|
|
|
hermie 
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Location: melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bothers me all the experts are saying jesse white was a bad recruit,there were 15 other clubs trying to get him and we did get him so now he is no good hindsight is a great thing maybe one of these nimrods can give me the sat night lotto numbers. |
|
|
|
|
hermie
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Location: melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| with the injuries our backline wasn't settled all season,can"t remember a week without a forced change and also the comparison to gws being short of manpower is almost true as they had injuries before the game not during just wish these dicks could be a bit more balanced |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
