It's gonna get worse (before it gets better)

[Pied Piper]

I've thought a long time before writing this blog. What I have to say will probably come as a shock to anyone familiar with my usual post style. I also think it's better to write this after a win, not a loss: while I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, it's important that this isn't seen as a knee-jerk reaction to anything. My intentions are positive, anyway.

This board can be categorised, very crudely, as an endless debate between the half-fulls and the half-empties. Those who see Collingwood through "rose-coloured glasses" versus the doomsayers. The funny thing is, both sides think they're realists.

I'll cut to the chase. I think Collingwood has some hard times ahead. In my opinion we weren't quite good enough last year, definitely aren't good enough this year and I doubt we will be in 2009, either.

Now, before all the "half-full" types (of which I normally classify myself a member of) jump on me, let me also add that I'm not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Unlike many on this board, I have trust in the coaching staff and the administration that we are moving in the right direction: towards a premiership. They are paid to do their jobs and on the whole I think they have the runs on the board to say they know what they're doing.

However, I think we will have to show patience for a little longer. To explain why, let's have a good close look at our list.

Collingwood is nearing the end of its second rebuilding phase of the Malthouse/McGuire era. The first began in 1999 and ended in 2003 after successive grand final losses. It was obvious by then that that group, however willing, had fired its best shot. Looking through some of the names of that time, I defy anyone to say that Malthouse didn't pull off a coaching triumph in getting them to two grand finals.

The second rebuilding stage began in 2004 and 2005, helped along by a gutting series of injuries that effectively put us out of contention anyway. The rebuilding wasn't just on-field. Derek Hine's arrival finally started to see us get our recruiting right. Unfortunately, we also lost some real talent too - most importantly I think, Neil Balme, who arrived at Geelong at exactly the right time and proved to be exactly who they (especially Mark Thompson) needed.

In 2007 we started to see the fruit of the second rebuild. Malthouse again deserves great credit for getting a mostly inexperienced bunch of goers to within a whisker of another grand final and probably, I believe, a premiership miracle that would have rivalled the Baby Bombers of '93. The team showed the same fanatical desire as that of 2002, but with more talent. However, that talent is still emerging, not fully formed.

At the end of the year we suffered a massive loss of experience: Buckley, Licuria and, hardest of all in terms of structure, James Clement. Their loss has been felt in terms of leadership, guidance and depth. Now our inexperienced backup is the front line - and surprise, surprise, they're not quite ready. That's because most of them are only 20-21. More on that later.

Here's why it's going to get worse next year. It's becoming palpably obvious that Anthony Rocca is struggling to go on. He's kicked 50+ goals in the last two seasons, took more contested marks than anyone and still takes the opposition's best defender, but it's clear he won't get anywhere near that this year. His body is breaking down and anyone of the ilk of Scarlett, Glass et al easily has his measure. He is, I am afraid, in his last season.

So is Simon Prestigiacomo, who has suffered from chronic foot problems, and Brodie Holland, who has been crippled by his Achilles. In both cases you'd have to say we are far better off investing in young talent - the Wellinghams and Browns. But they WILL take time to find their feet, no matter how promising they look now.

We will also lose Wakelin and Burns to retirement. Between these five players, that is nearly 1000 games of experience, knowhow, leadership and on-field presence we stand to lose as of the end of this season. We will probably also lose or delist Ryan Lonie, another 100 games. This represents the real end of the Buckley-era playing group.

The loss of Rocca and Clement is still the most worrying factor. This is why we invested so heavily in height in 2006: our spine, once a real strength, was nearing the end. We have to hope and pray that one or both of Reid and Dawes make it. They will get their chance. Again, they will take time to settle.

That still leaves relative veterans O'Bree, Lockyer and Johnson. The future of all three has been queried heavily. I think it would be ridiculous to move any of these on (except maybe Johnson) because we are already losing enough experience as it is. If we let them go it really will be boys against men next year.

"But they won't get us to a premiership." No, they probably won't, but don't underestimate their knowledge and the confidence they give the younger players, not least in the example they set by their work ethic and desperation. All teams turn over their experienced players gradually - even Hawthorn, who still had Ben Dixon and Joel Smith on their list last year.

Also, elevating players too soon only creates false expectations and a vicious cycle. Some of us want to sack the older players and blood the kids. That's because that gives us what all football fans crave: hope (and hey, if we bottom out we might get a good draft pick or two - more hope!). Well, let me tell you, there's nothing worse than false hope. If players are given too much responsibility before they're ready - see Josh Fraser - then when they inevitably let us down, then the recruiters are at fault, "what's wrong with this club", "sack the board", etc etc. It goes downhill fast.

We are in this situation because of our oddly-shaped list, demographically speaking: lots of top-end experience, lots of talented youngsters, not much in the middle. We are about to lose the last of our top-end experience, and inevitably, it's gonna hurt. Things will get worse before they get better. On how they'll get better - I'll post that separately. I have to leave this for now, but I'll be back...

[Dave The Man]

So you reckon could win the Wooden Spoon next year because we will be Way Too Young?

[John Wren]

i'd be interested to know what the median age is for a successful list. don't most premiership teams consist of a core group of players who have been together for 4-5 years? if that's the case then looking at our current list which in the main has been assembled post 2005 it does seem apparent we are looking towards 09/10.

i do wonder how much of last years effort really surprised the coaching staff, in particular the ability to introduce nine debutants while still improving ladder position. again, as in 02/03 it appears mm has worked wonders and should continue to be acknowledged as a very good coach.

there are any number of theories for our current predicament, all of which get an airing quite frequently. the fact scotty burns was appointed captain says a lot for where we are really at, and that is taking nothing away from his appointment.

your point about balme is spot on. it's no coincidence geelong picked up a flag. people bag the hell out of licca but we can not afford to let his type slip away.

of course we would all like to see a flag this year i can not disagree with your sentiments pp.

[Trezegol]

Pied Piper - I totally agree with just about everything that you have said.

However:

- We have already partially covered for the loss of Presti and luckily young Brown has not put a foot wrong.

- Rocca's likely absence next year may be offset by Cam Wood's development in the ruck. If he can hold down the number one ruck post, this will allow Fraser to play as a permanent forward.

- One would expect that our current batch of 20-21 year olds will continue to improve and this will again offset the loss of players such as Burns.

- I don't expect that we will feel the loss of Brodie and Lonie because they are no longer permanent members of our senior team.

[Dave The Man]

The 2 Big Losses you could say from 2002-2003 was Balme and Ladley

[Breadcrawl]

I agree with much of what you say, but not all.

There is no reason why we should not be as good this year as last. There is even less logic to your claim that we will get worse next year.

We lost Clement. Bucks and Licuria hardly played a game last year. We nearly won a preliminary final.

Against the loss of one player, and the inevitable decline in performance of another couple (Rocca and Wakelin), we benefit from the increase in experience and consequent improvement of about 15 players, and the blooding of a few more.

Swan, Didak, Medhurst, O'Bree, Lockyer, Davis, Fraser, Johnson, Maxwell, Rhyce Shaw - in their prime. I'd just about put Heath there too, and he and Swan have gotten to that level so early in their careers. All of these players are better than they were 1-2 years ago, or at least as good, expect maybe for Lockyer and I expect him to recover his form. This is half a team that are at the least, not going backwards. If Lonie gets his act together we could add another into this category.

Then there is the very exciting group that consists of Pendles, Thomas, Goldsack, Cloke, Harry, Clarke, and I'd put Cox in there though he hasn't played many yet. They have more than shown enough, they're already good enough for AFL level football, and they can only improve. There's a couple of cases of second year blues going around ATM, but you don't hear much about 3rd year blues do you? Next year this entire group should go up a level and have a huge influence on the quality of the entire group.

And then, we have the class of 2008 - Brown, Wood and Wellingham so far, but I bet Cook's put his hand up properly by the end of the year. John Anthony as well. They will get better every game by a ridiculous degree because of their position on the 'learning curve' which Mick employs so well.

It just isn't logical to expect this group to go backwards at this point in time. Too many of them are moving forwards towards their peak, not enough are past it, moving away.

I don't doubt that we'll be a better side in 2009 and 2010. I don't think the group will peak till 2011 or 2012. But I do not accept that we can't be competitive between now and then, because we showed last year that we're already thereabouts.

Yes, I am certainly a 'half-full' type supporter - but it was so very satisfying to be right last year, when everyone I knew said we were a bottom four team.

Don't be fooled by the game against the Hawks. I don't think Mick was trying as hard as he could to win that game. He's a cagey bastard. If he did have an answer to the Clarko cluster, do you really think he'd unveil it in Round 7? I don't.

Like I said at the start of the year, I reckon Mick aims to come fourth. Thanks to the apparent dominance of the top few teams, that's going to be easier than usual, and will probably require fewer wins than normal. We're right on track by my reckoning.

My rose-coloured glasses are fogging up. I better go wipe them off

[ktszyu1]

I agree with the opening post to an extent, but the near future won't be as glum as that in my opinion.

[Pied Piper]

OK folks, thanks for the responses so far, I will come back with part two tomorrow.

[Tannin]

Great post, Pied Piper. Well thought out and well said. Some very good replies contra also.

One difficulty that we supporters face is knowing where the team is up to. Many of the glass-half-full people are thinking we are fair-dinkum contenders because of our performance last year, and many of the glass-half-empty people are getting their knickers all twisted up because we have failed so miserably to maintain our position as the "second-best side in the comp".

Both groups are largely basing their assessment on a single false premise. They look at our two final wins last year, look at the side that put us out of the finals by only a kick or so (Geelong), look atthe way that Geelong thrashed Port and North .... and thus decide that we were the second-best side going around.

In a word: bulldust! Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We had a good first half of the season (the easy half) then the wheels fell off and we played a few absolute shockers, some of them against sides that should never be able to get close to us. Most of the games we won, we just staggered in. But we nevertheless managed to stagger our way into a ladder position that truly reflected our overall performance: in the eight but only just in. Anywhere around about 6th or 7th or 8th was, on the way we played through the year, about right.

Unfortunately, then we won two finals, did OK in a third. And this is where shallow-thinking fools on both sides of the glass-half-full/half-empty debate lost the plot. "We nearly won a preliminary final" they chant, as they disappear off into cloud-cuckoo land.

What did we actually do?

1: We staggered into the finals on the back of a good win against a former great power of the game that we have always matched up well against. (Sydney.) The Sydney of 2007 was NOT the mighty Sydney of 2004/2005/2006. Sydney were on the way out. And we have always matched up well on them. A good win, in other words, but hardly unexpected.

2: We were gifted with another game against Sydney, and duly won it.

3: We went over to Perth and played against a side that was regarded as a very, very, serious contender: West Coast. A near-impossible task, everyone said. But there were two things in our favour, only one of them obvious at the time. First, WCE were without their three brilliant midfielders. Without Kerr, Cousins, and Judd, WCE were not the WCE that won the flag in 2006, not even close. Second, no-one realised it at the time, but West Coast weren't just having a form slump and a few problems with injuries - as this year's performance has demonstrated, West Coast were in the middle of a full-on crash from premiers to bottom-4 contenders. And we still couldn't beat them. At full-time, we were only level. It wasn't until extra time that we finally over-ran this one-time great side.

4: We played a very, very good side that, luckily enough, we have a history of matching up pretty well on, and came close but not close enough.

So really, when you look at our "fantastic" finals performance in 2007, there was one real achievement: losing to Geelong by a small margin only. The rest of our finals series was merely winning matches that were always going to win if we didn't have a huge f-up.

Turn our finals campaign around and think about the sides we didn't play, sides that could well have rolled us (North Melbourne, Adelaide, Port - all 50/50 matchups), and sides that would quite probably have thrashed us because they have the knack of beating Collingwood just as we have the knack of beating Essendon and Sydney (Footscray, Hawthorn, Melbourne). (Huh? Melbourne weren't in the finals, they are a totally hopeless excuse for a football side. Is that so? In that case, why did they thrash Collingwood last year?)

SUMMARY: last year we deserved to finish about 7th but got lucky. So far this year, we are on track to maintain our standing as a 5th through 9th side. Anything more than that is a matter of hope, not a matter of fact or even reasonable expectation. (I nevertheless remain quite confident that we can improve in the 2nd half of the season and have a red-hot finals crack from the top half of the 5th-8th section of the ladder, and (who knows?) just maybe sneak into 4th. But that's just hope, not fact.)

[Mugwump]

As usual, a thought-provoking post, Piper, and some good, thought-provoked replies.

I think Tannin is probably fair in his assessment, though we still won two tough finals games , both of them away games - never an easy matter even against declining teams. And to get within 5 points of Geelong late last year was remarkable, in view of what transpired a week later.

On experience, the visible difference between the Collingwood that surrendered abjectly to Richmond in Round 18 and the finals team was the addition of a fit and firing Clement, and Buckley. I can't think of anything else, so yes, leadership matters.

We will need to replace Rocca's goal kicking contribution and either Reid or Rusling need to step up/stay on the park. I still think that Rocca makes us a little one-dimensional, and though I love the bloke and what he's given Collingwood, I think we may actually benefit from the evolution of a faster, more dynamic forward strategy when Pebbles' time comes. The unknown is how long it takes us to develop that - maybe a year, maybe less, maybe two.

In terms of talent and leadership into the next 2-3 years, I think Didak, Davis, the Shaws, Johnson, Lockyer, Fraser and Swan have enough games in them to take on a stabilising, leadership role as Burns, Rocca and Wakelin transition, and another year should be enough for us to make out far more clearly the upside in Pendles, Wood, Brown, Wellingham, Goldsack, Thomas and Cloke. Dawes is just speculative capital.

Uncertainty is part of what makes watching the game great, but my betting would be on us finishing 5-8 for the next two years because I think the youth upside is still growing at least as fast as the experience is waning, and my guess (not shared by many) is that a different forward structure will benefit us in the next 12 months.

I'm looking forward to your post of how things can only get better...!

[jimbeam]

if you look at the list right now there are players out of form all across the board.

Max
Obrian
Johnson
Lockyer
Rocca
Thomas
Pendles
Burns
Cloke
Goldsack
Clarke

you could almost add fraser

thats about half our list, its scary to think we have managed 4/4.

There is no way i can accept people telling me last year was another fluke. I am sick of hearing that after 02, 03 and 90. BS.

The simple fact is we are getting smashed, hammered, thumped, owned in the midfield. And with that many players out of form obviously the side is struggling.

I honestly think fraser should come in for Johnson, cloke and frase can play chf up ground in the guts all game, giving thomas the job all damn year to run with the oppos best mid, then rest at ff with rocca. We need to tweak the mid structure around, if only we had foley i would tip us for the flag, even at 4/4.

dont give up just yet. In 5 weeks we will know if this thread has any credit.

[sq3]

I think Pied Piper and Tanin have summed up most of the problems that we have - but we have one other bigger problem.

In 2008 the game has changed - big time.

Cats looked good last year and won quite comfortably - but while they were winning the Hawks, Crows and Dogs were working hard.

The top 4 sides play a completley different game to the other 12 teams - and the Hawks are the best at it.

Move the ball fast, run in waves and play up the corridor at every chance.

Lions are now on this track as well as is the Power.

Pies are no where near it and this is going to show up a lot in 2008 and the Pies realistically will finish between 8 and 12.

The administration must take some of the responsibility for this - no tackling or skills coaches is really being seen in 2008.

The Pies always thought of themsleves as the pace setters off the field - Arizona training etc.,

Pies are now back in the pack and have really made some stupid non decisions in the past 3-4 years - not using the Storm tackling coaches on a regular basis, no having a full time skills coach (Daicos would have been ideal), keeping too many plodders on the list.

We have players like Obree, Swan etc., that could not run out of sight on a dark night - too compensate for that you MUST have better skills as the ball will always move faster than a player running with it.

Pies administration and coaching staff are way behind the top 4 teams and falling fast.

Pies should have learned after watching the Lions win 3 in a row - Hawks did but made the model better by using more skilled and taller players.

[vlad]

[quote="Pied Piper"]........

The second rebuilding stage began in 2004 and 2005, helped along by a gutting series of injuries that effectively put us out of contention anyway. how did we get those injuries. there was a whole lot how come?
The rebuilding wasn't just on-field. Derek Hine's arrival finally started to see us get our recruiting right. Unfortunately, we also lost some real talent too - most importantly I think, Neil Balme, who arrived at Geelong at exactly the right time and proved to be exactly who they (especially Mark Thompson) needed. If we let them go it really will be boys against men next year. [i]Malthouse says that this is a good thing, like sending boys to war.
Also, elevating players too soon only creates false expectations and a vicious cycle. ..... Well, let me tell you, there's nothing worse than false hope. If players are given too much responsibility before they're ready - see Josh Fraser - then when they inevitably let us down, then the recruiters are at fault, "what's wrong with this club", "sack the board", etc etc. It goes downhill fast. [i] if Josh Fraser was put in the 1sts too early why did that happen? did the clubs decisionmakers get that right?
i] We are in this situation because of our oddly-shaped list, demographically speaking: lots of top-end experience, lots of talented youngsters, not much in the middle. We are about to lose the last of our top-end experience, and inevitably, it's gonna hurt. Things will get worse before they get better. its called list management. how can it be said that the club gets it right when its said too that things will get worse b4 they get better On how they'll get better - I'll post that separately. I have to leave this for now, but I'll be back...[/quote]b] [i] so will the rest of us. good post pp

[DaicosMagic]

[jackcass]

I'm not sure if this discussion actually belongs on Nicks. Far too rational and insightful. Just when you think this forum is fast becoming irrelivent drivel, thanks mainly to the constant flip-flop meaningless crap submitted by a few posters, Pied Piper goes and starts an intelligent discussion....

Yellow card her!