Most key position players are a liability

[AN_Inkling]

Who have been the most maligned players on our list? Excluding Blair it's the big guys: Cloke, White, Frost, Brown, Gault, Witts...

And why? Because some games they don't get a lot of the ball. Maybe they don't move or kick the ball too well. To be blunt, a lot of the time they seem to serve little purpose, and this is true of most big men across the league. Essentially they're special teams players playing a full game. And up until very recently that's been fine. Because they provide structure or they nullify opposition structuralists. Increasingly though, this is changing. Structures are becoming less and less static and require movement that some of these bigger players are not physically or mentally capable of providing. Additionally, to set these structures into motion you need players that can provide quick rebound from defense, something these bigger and less skilled types can not manage. More and more each year the negatives of playing a big man are increasing and the positives diminishing.

This does not mean that the big man is dead. Mostly though you will want your talls to be far more athletic than they've been before, and truly big men will need to be elite to survive. Even a player like Hawkins is starting to look like a dinosaur and may not last much longer. The value of a mediocre big man though is falling through the floor. The negative impact of a player who can't run like a mid is becoming so great that being able to take a few marks (and contested marking continues to decline) is not enough. If a medium can take that position, run far better and at least compete in marking contests, then they are almost certainly a better option.

What it does mean is that big men are no longer required to be successful and while teams will still use them, the numbers across the league will continue to diminish. Your previously standard big-bodied player who could take contested marks or stop a big forward but couldn't run or use the ball too well is already a dying breed and will soon be virtually extinct. Those attributes hold little value in a game where defences can out number your big man, spoil him then run off with little resistance. The odd occasion where a big man gets a few one on ones and causes problems? Well, your midfield or overall structures have failed and need to be fixed. That's where the real game lies.

And this is why I am entirely relaxed about our supposed lack of big men. I see just about anyone over 190cm as big enough and we have plenty of them. What we also have and have not had in the past, is enough players that can run and use the ball. Everyone we let go in this trade period has a deficiency in this aspect, and fans have been crying out for it to be fixed, then some are dismayed when we make the move. The two main reasons our defensive structures so often collapsed in 2016 were lack of run and poor ball use from defence. Losing the big players we have will only help, not hinder our defensive prospects.

So I don't see this as some list management failure. I think it's been a definite plan to fix a weakness. We either wanted to diminish the role of these players or to move them on. This view was strengthened when we did not chase a big man replacement, instead going after the medium, Dunn who is another good user of the ball. A backline with these tall options:

Reid,
Howe,
Dunn,
Goldsack,
Scharenberg,
Oxley,
Keeffe,
Langdon

does not seem lacking for size to me but looks like the makings of a quality zoning and intercepting force, with the type of mobility and penetrative usage needed to damage an opposition on the counter. Could we do with one or two more bigger players? Maybe, especially another younger one. But do we need them? Absolutely not. We're actually not worse off than many other teams and with the number of mediums we have now, could be ahead of the curve in developing a team that fits the modern game rather than continuing to play underperforming bigs due to cultural inertia. I think this has been a brave move and understand why some are apprehensive, but it looks like a definite plan and it will be very interesting to see how it pans out.

[Mugwump]

Agreed on all counts. I think this is the story that hawthorn and the Dogs have been writing for the last four years or so. I am slightly disappointed it took us so long to embrace it, but I'm optimistic about where it is going.

[neil]

This seems to be true BUT a single rule change by the AFL can change this completely.
The substitute rule is an example
Changing the ruck contest rule ended Steve McKee's career

If the fans and TV demand more classic forward action then watch the need for a dinosaur remerge

[What'sinaname]

We'll see whether it's the AFL system or Collingwood's system that has failed these big men. If we find Cloke, Witts, Brown and Frost flourish in new environs, then the problem is within our four walls.

[qldmagpie67]

Really good post inky. I think in the second half of last season due to form and injury we had to go into matches some what undersized compared to our starting 22 round 1. It wasn't by design but as that second half of the season unfolded I think we saw the penny drop with the coach that maybe being to tall was more of a liability than being not tall enough.
We started to run and carry the ball more, we took the game on more and we attacked at most opportunities.
This then highlighted a distinct lack of foot and in some cases hand skills. Players like Trelaor and Sidey made several terrible errors by both hand and foot but for mine on most occasions those errors were made trying to be attacking so I would much rather see that then when we turn it over trying to over use the ball. Other players over used the hand ball and we got caught out doing so but again we tried being attacking and that can come at a price.
I believe we identified our best assets as our midfield group and decided to jettison players who's disposal was more often than not poor.
Each player we have recruited have better than average foot skills and particularly Wells & WHE. We also recruited run in Wells, athletism in WHE, forward line pressure in Mayne and another booming boot for our backline.
Our best footy in 2016 was when we played a positive brand and backed ourselves and in 2017 I think we will see this go to another level.
If we can get the best out of our mid range/younger players this list has potential to burn but potential doesn't win games effort and hard work does.
I see players like Aish DeGoey Adams Maynard Ramsay Elliott Scharenberg WHE Moore Fasalo Grundy being vital to our chances. If they all improve or get back from injury well then we could be anything. Treloar Pendles Sidey Wells White Reid Howe Mayne Dunn provide the experience and best skills and they need to set the tone each and every minute for the younger brigade to follow
I'm bullish about our chances

[3rd degree]

[DT]

Brilliant post Inkling and interesting that the 'List Manager' Terry Wallace has not picked upon this trend the epitome of which is the Dogs and was prefaced to some extent last year by West Coast.

As such if this analysis is correct then Pies are poised to strike hard next year.

[simon tonna]

outstanding post inkling. one without speculation.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

OK, if this this premise is true why has Freemantle struggled so much the last couple of years without proper coverage for Pavlich and went to desperate lengths to recruit McCarthy. In fact Mayne comes to us courtesy of Ross Lyon, who wore him out playing him on talls down the back of the field. Geelong is another club who keeps recruiting, then discarding talls in search of the right combination of talls in attack. Hawkins form has fallen away when the attack has relied solely on him. GWS came of age this year when they found the right tall combination in attack in Patton, Cameron and Lobb.

To be fair to Terry Wallace, he's not the only expert criticising Collingwood's lack of depth of talls. I had a long hard look at our list last night, as I'm sure other people here did after the trades came through. There are so many variables in attack that it's an impossible job to assess how the group is going to perform next year. What complicates matters is that certain players can play tall and prefer a taller opponent who they can burn off, whereas other players like to crumb around the packs and don't like being outmuscled by their heavier taller opponents. What has changed though is that we now field two talls in attack; that is it will be Moore and White in attack, or Moore and Cox. It won't be all three. So we won't be doing what GWS does. Playing the three talls in attack hasn't worked since Buckley has been coach. In my opinion our attack in the second half of this season has looked the best it has been in the five years Buckley has been coach. During that period Fasolo played at full forward, Moore as the true CHF and White as the roaming tall forward covering Grundy in the ruck. Even when Moore and Fasolo were injured the forward line functioned OK playing Crocker and Phillips as mobile forwards. Next year we have Broomhead as the crumber, Mayne and Blair as defensive forwards, WHE and De Goey as half forwards who can mark and bomb long goals. I figure we just play combinations of the forward six in the preseason until we settle on a forward six who click together.

The game has changed, but it hasn't changed to the point where you don't have to play talls. The great Norm Smith wasn't tall, but he kicked a lot of goals at full forward by being mobile and by being able to outwork his opponents. He had Meuller at CHF to protect him. Between the two of them they kicked all the goals, with the rovers and flankers chipping in for the rest of the goals. For us to kick a winning score, we need Moore, Cox, Fasolo and White to each kick 30+ goals a season. The flankers and mids can chip in for their one or two goals a game, but they can't do it all.

[Deja Vu]

I would add that you still need KPPs but the big slow lumbering types are finished.

If Moore is the prototype forward for the next 10 years - 2m tall, fast and runs all day, don't you need a similar type to defend him?

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

[mudlark]

[Raw Hammer]

[Stevo75]

Some excellent points there by almost everyone. Great summation Mudlark although you should save your time. Some people I think want Collingwood to fail. After all if the team and coach succeed, what would they have to complain about?
Apart from the usual culprits, its great to see some positive comments back on this board.

[Museman]