Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Why are our mids so ordinary?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
1892_ 



Joined: 18 Dec 2015


PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

RudeBoy wrote:
1892_ wrote:
While we don't currently have anybody playing that role there's a few options on our list. Giving De Goey more centre square minutes would be a start and I wouldn't mind seeing what Maynard could offer up the ground. Last night would have been the perfect opportunity to see what Wills could do at senior level, not only is he a big mid he likes to try to take game and opponents on, although I think he's still getting the balance right in that regard. Sier with time scopes as another option, but he's a while off.


I still think De Goey can become that player for us, but maybe he just needed this week off to rest. Hopefully he'll develop into a Nat Fyfe type over the next 2-3 years. As for Sier, he's got the size, but is yet to build the tank to play at the elite level, since he's been struggling so far with the pace of VFL footy. Overall, I reckon our poor performances in the midfield this year have simply highlighted how much we've missed Swanny. He was a ball magnet, and such magnets are invaluable.

Yeah, we've definitely missed Swan, losing our best player of the last decade was always going to be tough. The other aspect is getting our midfield combinations right, often against North we had Greenwood, Crisp and Pendlebury as our starting centre square mids. All 3 lack pace and both Crisp and Greenwood play defensively. Two defensive mids suggests we're playing reactive footy. We'd be better off playing two attacking mids, so if Pendlebury gets shut out by the oppositions tagger we still have another to hunt the ball.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The game yesterday was effectively won and lost in the first half of the first quarter, in which time we lost six centre clearances in a row. By the time we won our first centre clearance the scoreline was 41-13.

I looked at this section today on replay. Here is what i saw :

1. Indecisive ruck contest but .goldstein wins football in a ground ball contest with Grundy and handballs to Dumont

2. Pendlebury was with Wells at the centre bounce in the Pies forward half , and he left wells to run into the contest. Goldstein won the tap, which flew past pendlebury to Wells out back

3. Daw wins tap over Grundy, which goes to Wells in North's forard half. Wells was manned by Adams at the bounce, but he broke broke clear a second earlier and has two metres on Tay by the time he meets the ball. Wells then handballs to a runner outside

4. Centre bounce after north had goaled from the first of the two "Howes of Horrors" goals for the quarter. Indecisive ruck contest though slightly more influenced by Grundy. Ball bounces haphazardly between Greenwood and Treloar who were ready to punce, onto a NM players foot and it then bobbles up to Wells who was (again) in front of Adams.

5. White in ruck, goldstein taps back to Swallow in a clear set-play.

6. Cunnington breaks from Treloar and receives Goldstein's clear tap forward (vs Grundy) out of ruck. Cunnington handballs back to .wells who had been guarded by Crisp until Crisp ran forward to try and influence the contest.

7. The pattern breaks with 9 mins to go in the quarter. Grundy wins a ragged tap to Pendlebury who shrugs a tackler and boots it forard. After this we outscore north who do not get another goal.

What do we make of all this ? My initial hypothesis was that it was all about bigger bodies in the midfield. It is fairly clear that this is not the issue. There were four factors in this monstrous shellacking that cost us the game. In order of importance :

A) Grundy being pantsed by (mostly) Goldstein. I guess that is down to a young ruckman vs an old and very good hand. This is by far the most important issue.
B) Norths mids getting in front of their men knowing where goldstein might put it. adams allowed this to happen twice, Treloar once.
C) Pies players leaving their man to try and influence the ball carrier once north have got hold of it in the middle, allowing the ball carrier to give to a free player outside the contest. I guess this is really a calculation about whetehr you might stop the give before it becomes a go. In any event, we stopped neither.
D) sheer dumb luck and the bounce of the ball, which explained one of the six.


My conclusion from all this is that we lost this game largely because Goldstein destroyed Grundy at the centre clearances in the first half of the first quarter. Howe's two horrors did not help, and nor, I suspect, did the loss of Sinclair, who is our only line-breaker and who might have helped us get it out of the back half given that the game was being played there. But if those clearances had gone 3-3 we's have been level at quarter time.

That is not to disgrace Brodie Grundy - it's acknowledging that this very promising young ruckman still has a way to go, and he needs to keep learning his craft. We should also acknowledge that this is what happens to young teams. Anyone who thinks the coach was to blame for that has an agenda which is pre-formed.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a good analysis Mugwump, however I think you're placing too much emphasis on Grundy. The really top sides have midfield players who can effectively rove to the opposition ruckman. Centre bounce clearance work is where our elite players, Pendles/Treloar/Adams need to improve significantly.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:13 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Treloar and Adams are not elite. We just all wish they were.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
roar 



Joined: 01 Sep 2004


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:16 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Spot on, p4s. Actually, I don't believe we have any elite talent at the moment.

Pendles was but this year I don't think he will bother the AA selectors.

_________________
kill for collingwood!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:51 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

roar wrote:
Spot on, p4s. Actually, I don't believe we have any elite talent at the moment.

Pendles was but this year I don't think he will bother the AA selectors.


We're f*cked then. Confused
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Cam Capricorn

Nick's BB Member #166


Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

It was staggering. Grundy actually shaded Goldstein in a points decision, especially around the ground, but hit outs too, but we just could not take the ball out of the middle from bounces.
_________________
Get back on top.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
roar 



Joined: 01 Sep 2004


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

RudeBoy wrote:
roar wrote:
Spot on, p4s. Actually, I don't believe we have any elite talent at the moment.

Pendles was but this year I don't think he will bother the AA selectors.


We're f*cked then. Confused


At the moment, yes.

However, we do have a bunch of players who aren't that far off so if there is actually some development of players we could have a few this time next year.

_________________
kill for collingwood!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
neil Sagittarius



Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
The game yesterday was effectively won and lost in the first half of the first quarter, in which time we lost six centre clearances in a row. By the time we won our first centre clearance the scoreline was 41-13.

I looked at this section today on replay. Here is what i saw :

1. Indecisive ruck contest but .goldstein wins football in a ground ball contest with Grundy and handballs to Dumont

2. Pendlebury was with Wells at the centre bounce in the Pies forward half , and he left wells to run into the contest. Goldstein won the tap, which flew past pendlebury to Wells out back

3. Daw wins tap over Grundy, which goes to Wells in North's forard half. Wells was manned by Adams at the bounce, but he broke broke clear a second earlier and has two metres on Tay by the time he meets the ball. Wells then handballs to a runner outside

4. Centre bounce after north had goaled from the first of the two "Howes of Horrors" goals for the quarter. Indecisive ruck contest though slightly more influenced by Grundy. Ball bounces haphazardly between Greenwood and Treloar who were ready to punce, onto a NM players foot and it then bobbles up to Wells who was (again) in front of Adams.

5. White in ruck, goldstein taps back to Swallow in a clear set-play.

6. Cunnington breaks from Treloar and receives Goldstein's clear tap forward (vs Grundy) out of ruck. Cunnington handballs back to .wells who had been guarded by Crisp until Crisp ran forward to try and influence the contest.

7. The pattern breaks with 9 mins to go in the quarter. Grundy wins a ragged tap to Pendlebury who shrugs a tackler and boots it forard. After this we outscore north who do not get another goal.

What do we make of all this ? My initial hypothesis was that it was all about bigger bodies in the midfield. It is fairly clear that this is not the issue. There were four factors in this monstrous shellacking that cost us the game. In order of importance :

A) Grundy being pantsed by (mostly) Goldstein. I guess that is down to a young ruckman vs an old and very good hand. This is by far the most important issue.
B) Norths mids getting in front of their men knowing where goldstein might put it. adams allowed this to happen twice, Treloar once.
C) Pies players leaving their man to try and influence the ball carrier once north have got hold of it in the middle, allowing the ball carrier to give to a free player outside the contest. I guess this is really a calculation about whetehr you might stop the give before it becomes a go. In any event, we stopped neither.
D) sheer dumb luck and the bounce of the ball, which explained one of the six.


My conclusion from all this is that we lost this game largely because Goldstein destroyed Grundy at the centre clearances in the first half of the first quarter. Howe's two horrors did not help, and nor, I suspect, did the loss of Sinclair, who is our only line-breaker and who might have helped us get it out of the back half given that the game was being played there. But if those clearances had gone 3-3 we's have been level at quarter time.

That is not to disgrace Brodie Grundy - it's acknowledging that this very promising young ruckman still has a way to go, and he needs to keep learning his craft. We should also acknowledge that this is what happens to young teams. Anyone who thinks the coach was to blame for that has an agenda which is pre-formed.

Great analysis also had Greenwood not played stupid and given away a free kick resulting in a goal the result would have been better. Had Howe also not played stupid that would have been three less goals to them in the first qtr

No coach has ever given instructions or directions to players to gift the opposition goals

_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

So, the coach didn't do it - the guys he recruited and gave games to did?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
So, the coach didn't do it - the guys he recruited and gave games to did?


He's recruited Grundy who can, amd will, be a top ruckman. But he is 22 and still learning the caper. I disagre with Cam to the extent that Grundy was completely outpointed in the first quarter where the game was won, as the blow-by-blow picture shows. This tends to happen with Grundy, amd it explains our tendency to start slowly. I suspect it is nerves and over-eagerness which exacerbates Grundy's tendency to mis-time his jumps.

While he matures, we need to recruit a seasoned successful late-career big-bodied ruckman and put them in the middle with instructions to at least halve every duel. Either that or try cox, who might have the height to do so. I am also not sure that A rocca, oir ruck coach, was ever really a ruckman.

Is that the coach's fault ? Well, up to a point. But Malthoise was a great coach and he persisted with Guy Richards and Cam Wood. It can be hard to find a good ruckman, but once Malty did in 2010 good things hapoened.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
cfc2009-10-11-12 



Joined: 26 Aug 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
The game yesterday was effectively won and lost in the first half of the first quarter, in which time we lost six centre clearances in a row. By the time we won our first centre clearance the scoreline was 41-13.

I looked at this section today on replay. Here is what i saw :

1. Indecisive ruck contest but .goldstein wins football in a ground ball contest with Grundy and handballs to Dumont

2. Pendlebury was with Wells at the centre bounce in the Pies forward half , and he left wells to run into the contest. Goldstein won the tap, which flew past pendlebury to Wells out back

3. Daw wins tap over Grundy, which goes to Wells in North's forard half. Wells was manned by Adams at the bounce, but he broke broke clear a second earlier and has two metres on Tay by the time he meets the ball. Wells then handballs to a runner outside

4. Centre bounce after north had goaled from the first of the two "Howes of Horrors" goals for the quarter. Indecisive ruck contest though slightly more influenced by Grundy. Ball bounces haphazardly between Greenwood and Treloar who were ready to punce, onto a NM players foot and it then bobbles up to Wells who was (again) in front of Adams.

5. White in ruck, goldstein taps back to Swallow in a clear set-play.

6. Cunnington breaks from Treloar and receives Goldstein's clear tap forward (vs Grundy) out of ruck. Cunnington handballs back to .wells who had been guarded by Crisp until Crisp ran forward to try and influence the contest.

7. The pattern breaks with 9 mins to go in the quarter. Grundy wins a ragged tap to Pendlebury who shrugs a tackler and boots it forard. After this we outscore north who do not get another goal.

What do we make of all this ? My initial hypothesis was that it was all about bigger bodies in the midfield. It is fairly clear that this is not the issue. There were four factors in this monstrous shellacking that cost us the game. In order of importance :

A) Grundy being pantsed by (mostly) Goldstein. I guess that is down to a young ruckman vs an old and very good hand. This is by far the most important issue.
B) Norths mids getting in front of their men knowing where goldstein might put it. adams allowed this to happen twice, Treloar once.
C) Pies players leaving their man to try and influence the ball carrier once north have got hold of it in the middle, allowing the ball carrier to give to a free player outside the contest. I guess this is really a calculation about whetehr you might stop the give before it becomes a go. In any event, we stopped neither.
D) sheer dumb luck and the bounce of the ball, which explained one of the six.


My conclusion from all this is that we lost this game largely because Goldstein destroyed Grundy at the centre clearances in the first half of the first quarter. Howe's two horrors did not help, and nor, I suspect, did the loss of Sinclair, who is our only line-breaker and who might have helped us get it out of the back half given that the game was being played there. But if those clearances had gone 3-3 we's have been level at quarter time.

That is not to disgrace Brodie Grundy - it's acknowledging that this very promising young ruckman still has a way to go, and he needs to keep learning his craft. We should also acknowledge that this is what happens to young teams. Anyone who thinks the coach was to blame for that has an agenda which is pre-formed.


It's no coincidence that Buckley chooses to surround the stoppages around the ground with huge numbers. It's to hide our weakness which you see at the centre bounces. If we didn't have huge numbers chasing the ball around the ground you'd see a similar dominance from the opposition there too. It's a massive problem and has been for almost 3 years.
Last year at the forum Buckley hinted at our young rucks being the cause of the problem and how they were focusing on this during the off-season. It's a concern that we've gotten worse knowing this was a previous weakness. Is it the way we set up? Or is it legitmately because we have a young ruck stock?
Probably a bit of both.
What Aish said a couple of weeks ago had me concerned. He mentioned that instead of concentrating on playing football he was to busy worrying about where he should be, not playing on instinct which was a factor in his poor early season form. I've got an inkling it's not only Aish that is experiencing this. To me this is over coaching.

_________________
Daicos, this is when he's at his best, the MAAASSSTTTTTEEERRR!!!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:12 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
So, the coach didn't do it - the guys he recruited and gave games to did?


He's recruited Grundy who can, amd will, be a top ruckman. But he is 22 and still learning the caper. I disagre with Cam to the extent that Grundy was completely outpointed in the first quarter where the game was won, as the blow-by-blow picture shows. This tends to happen with Grundy, amd it explains our tendency to start slowly. I suspect it is nerves and over-eagerness which exacerbates Grundy's tendency to mis-time his jumps.

While he matures, we need to recruit a seasoned successful late-career big-bodied ruckman and put them in the middle with instructions to at least halve every duel. Either that or try cox, who might have the height to do so. I am also not sure that A rocca, oir ruck coach, was ever really a ruckman.

Is that the coach's fault ? Well, up to a point. But Malthoise was a great coach and he persisted with Guy Richards and Cam Wood. It can be hard to find a good ruckman, but once Malty did in 2010 good things hapoened.

I'm not concerned at all about the rucking. Grundy still gets taken to the cleaners from time to time but he looks to have genuine star quality. In any event, I don't see it as primarily the coach's responsibility to get picks right in the draft. I was responding, rather, to the observations about Greenwood and Howe. We do seem to have spent a lot of money, time and effort recruiting ourselves a mostly average bunch of players from other clubs.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:54 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
So, the coach didn't do it - the guys he recruited and gave games to did?


He's recruited Grundy who can, amd will, be a top ruckman. But he is 22 and still learning the caper. I disagre with Cam to the extent that Grundy was completely outpointed in the first quarter where the game was won, as the blow-by-blow picture shows. This tends to happen with Grundy, amd it explains our tendency to start slowly. I suspect it is nerves and over-eagerness which exacerbates Grundy's tendency to mis-time his jumps.

While he matures, we need to recruit a seasoned successful late-career big-bodied ruckman and put them in the middle with instructions to at least halve every duel. Either that or try cox, who might have the height to do so. I am also not sure that A rocca, oir ruck coach, was ever really a ruckman.

Is that the coach's fault ? Well, up to a point. But Malthoise was a great coach and he persisted with Guy Richards and Cam Wood. It can be hard to find a good ruckman, but once Malty did in 2010 good things hapoened.

I'm not concerned at all about the rucking. Grundy still gets taken to the cleaners from time to time but he looks to have genuine star quality. In any event, I don't see it as primarily the coach's responsibility to get picks right in the draft. I was responding, rather, to the observations about Greenwood and Howe. We do seem to have spent a lot of money, time and effort recruiting ourselves a mostly average bunch of players from other clubs.


Actually I believe that if there is one major problem right now it is the rucking. Watch the Melbourne, GWS, Adelaide and North games again (or, in the latter case, read the blow-by-blow I posted above). In each case, we were slaughtered in the first quarter after being smashed in the clearances. Each time, it was largely because the opposition tap ruckman directed the ball to midfielders who knew in advance where it was going.

My theory is that Grundy is young and he comes out full of adrenaline, mistiming his jumps and generally taking time to settle down. As the game wears on, he halves contests and we win a lot of game back because our field team is pretty good. Right now this seems to me the biggest weakness, and it is consistent and the demonstrable reason for our notoriously bad starts.

In your post, I suppose I do not share the view that Howe and Greenwood were bad pick ups. Greenwood has a lot of mongrel, has been a fine tagger who gets plenty of it himself. And Howe and Reid have really been our backline in recent weeks. Howe's game on Friday was marred by a number of horrible errors, but all players have those days. Otherwise I think he's been at least as valuable - in a different way - as Heritier L was, for example.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:29 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
The lack of defensive run kills us most weeks. Luke Ball used to stop opposition players running forward from the contest the way Gandalf stopped the Balrog - and then Thomas charged relentlessly from contest to contest all over the ground. Swanny, Johnno and Wellingham, too, were good at bursting up and down the ground and forcing the opposition to watch them because of their ability to run the lines. Sidebottom and Pendlebury have always been very slow, as was Beams, so they needed and still need players around them who can do hard defensive running. None of Greenwood, Crisp, Adams or Treloar does that (the first three because they don't have the leg speed; I have no idea why Treloar doesn't). Thus, if the opposition gets its hands on the ball first, we are stuffed, because there is no Ball to force the opposition to run away to the wings and no effective defensive pressure when they run forward. Like some others above, I don't think a "big-bodied mid" is the first requirement (although one who can run like Dangerfield would be just fine). I think we need 3 or 4 players who can cover the ground going back, when required, but all our potential options are one-paced. Some of them are also too small but they are, first and foremost, too slow to get the job done.


I agree

But they are also targeting the wrong player. There were passages of play where we hit the ball disposer with a tackle seconds after the ball was GONE. If your too late, why tackle? They are not close enough to be causing the opposition to cough up in deprecation or get caught holding, you know, like we did umpteen times Frisay night. They killed us in close because they manned up, forcing rushed handballs and dinky kicks. What was the turnover stat?

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group