Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
JLT Series. Game on! - Pies v. Giants - All comments please.

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 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
^ I think if you look at any side (except GWS, the Frankenstein team on draft steroids) thereíll be some good ordinary players who just make the standard. 1990 - a truly outstanding side which pissed a back to back chance up against a wall - had Kerrison and Gayfer and Turner and arguably Starcevich, all ok players but not the type to put fear into the opposition week after week.
...

I think you've undersold some of those players. I think Manson comes to mind before them, surely.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Woods 

Buckley - turns boys into men


Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:35 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
Woods wrote:
...
If you want numbers to back it up, go read this: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-equation-that-proves-afl-preseason-form-doesnt-really-matter/news-story/1a02f4bf8bf97dbb57ed3ca30b6b5f47
...

The accuracy of that article is way worse than our kicking. Something to cheer about?


I'll leave it to the mathematicians to judge the soundness of the analysis, but you raise a point about kicking accuracy.

Kicking accuracy is so overrated. It gets far too much attention.

Go have a look at the stats for Collingwood last time they won a flag. Disposal by hand and foot was atrocious for the whole season. I was watching the replay of the last H&A game of 2010 recently (against Hawthorn) and the commentors bemoaned Collingwood's poor disposal (14th at that late stage of the year). But they were at the top of the ladder all year and went on the take the flag.

The problem with most respondents to this thread is that they have been brainwashed by the media, particularly TV commentators, into thinking that ugly footy is bad footy. TV networks and the AFL don't like ugly footy. They like pretty footy because they think (wrongly) that pretty footy of clean passages of play, high flying marks, and accurate goal kicking will win more viewers. Witness that abomination of a game called AFLX that is meant to showcase the prettier aspects of the game.

The team that relentlessly plays hard, ugly footy will always be more successful than teams of individually talented players that try to achieve success through skill ahead of grunt. And Collingwood in 2010 is a stark confirmation of that. It is the Collingwood brand, and it is more important than skill execution because it works.

If you want to be entertained go watch a movie. If you want pretty sport go watch that no contact game called soccer. Plenty of pretty moves there with the better teams. But if you watch Aussie Rules don't expect pretty boys. Watch 18 men relentlessly punishing any opposition player who touches the ball. That is what is in store with Collingwood in 2018. Buckley understands this brand of footy (and explains why the much maligned Blair is nearly always selected - because mistakes aside he plays with 100% grunt). But you won't see this grunt in a JLT game that does not win the club those 4 premiership points.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
masoncox 



Joined: 31 Aug 2015


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^
You made some interesting points until you brought up Blair...and then you lost me.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies2016 



Joined: 12 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The other issue with using practice matches as a form indicator, is that every club has different ideas and agendas as to what they want to get out of it.
Unless youíre inner sanctum, nobody knows on here what the clubs priority was at the selection table.
Some clubs genuinely set out to win ( usually the ones who struggle for memberships ) Other clubs just want to put miles into the legs of particular players. Some clubs want to look at juniors and others want to experiment with positional changes or structures. There are even occasions when opposition coaches get together and discuss match ups they want to see unfold that could work for the benefit of both teams young players.

If Buckleys focus on that game was to win it, then that isnít a good look.
If he had other priorities, then I just donít see the need for any concern ....yet.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
^ I think if you look at any side (except GWS, the Frankenstein team on draft steroids) thereíll be some good ordinary players who just make the standard. 1990 - a truly outstanding side which pissed a back to back chance up against a wall - had Kerrison and Gayfer and Turner and arguably Starcevich, all ok players but not the type to put fear into the opposition week after week.
...

I think you've undersold some of those players. I think Manson comes to mind before them, surely.


He was next on my list, agreed. I think weíll all agree that none of these guys were bad players, just good ordinary. I think it is the relative quality of your top fifteen who probably make the difference.

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



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Woods wrote:
K wrote:
...
The accuracy of that article is way worse than our kicking. Something to cheer about?
...
Kicking accuracy is so overrated. It gets far too much attention.

Go have a look at the stats for Collingwood last time they won a flag. Disposal by hand and foot was atrocious for the whole season. I was watching the replay of the last H&A game of 2010 recently (against Hawthorn) and the commentors bemoaned Collingwood's poor disposal (14th at that late stage of the year). But they were at the top of the ladder all year and went on the take the flag.

The problem with most respondents to this thread is that they have been brainwashed by the media, particularly TV commentators, into thinking that ugly footy is bad footy. TV networks and the AFL don't like ugly footy. They like pretty footy because they think (wrongly) that pretty footy of clean passages of play, high flying marks, and accurate goal kicking will win more viewers. Witness that abomination of a game called AFLX that is meant to showcase the prettier aspects of the game.
...


No. The goal-kicking accuracy was a concern, although we had the advantage that opposition sides couldn't clear defensive 50 after our many points. But the disposal efficiency wasn't especially good or bad.

The AFL website gives the following stats (2010).

Goal acc. %
1. Geelong 51.7; 2. W. Bulldogs 51.3; ... ; 13. Collingwood 47; ...

Disp. eff. %
1. Geelong 76.2; 2. St. Kilda 75.2; ... ; =7 Collingwood 73.1; ...

Clangers Ave.
1. Sydney 43; 2. Adelaide 43.1; 3. Collingwood 43.4; ...

Thus, comparatively, bad goal accuracy, middling disposal efficiency and good clanger count.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
ronrat 



Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:41 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The Cats today had the right idea. Do not risk your best players to a meaningless game in FNQ. Hawkins aside who probanly didn't run flat out for more than 10 metres the majority of players were VFL players. The new players get a taste of the faster pace and also things like preparing for interstate games. What to take, how long it takes to get to and from the airport and away from the adoring fans at Kardinia Park.

Cost would kill it but I can see a lot of sense of either havibg 2 shortened games with top ups from academies etc or one game with 6 period and a cap of 4 periods per player with the whole healthy list playing.

_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
BazBoy 



Joined: 11 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:02 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Disappointed yep and if I look at purely a practice match then lack of our key
players could right the ship come real stuff

I mean praccy match-really,the list Geelong fronted up with same same with hardly a key mid and got rolled 29 to 85 so Geelong would say we will be right
come the real stuff

_________________
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:07 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

That's OK, as far as it goes - the difference is that Geelong played finals last year, so they know that their team is around the mark. We, on the other hand, need to find out, urgently, if a few more of our guys can play to the requisite standard.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies2016 wrote:
The other issue with using practice matches as a form indicator, is that every club has different ideas and agendas as to what they want to get out of it.
Unless youíre inner sanctum, nobody knows on here what the clubs priority was at the selection table.
Some clubs genuinely set out to win ( usually the ones who struggle for memberships ) Other clubs just want to put miles into the legs of particular players. Some clubs want to look at juniors and others want to experiment with positional changes or structures. There are even occasions when opposition coaches get together and discuss match ups they want to see unfold that could work for the benefit of both teams young players.

If Buckleys focus on that game was to win it, then that isnít a good look.
If he had other priorities, then I just donít see the need for any concern ....yet.


The concern isn't whether we won or lost. That is irrelevant.

Apart from not being able to move the ball down the ground and not being able to score, the concern is the continual basic skill errors from players that are in our best 22. That those errors continue to occur, even in a slow paced practice match, is a problem.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MatthewBoydFanClub 



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:44 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
That's OK, as far as it goes - the difference is that Geelong played finals last year, so they know that their team is around the mark. We, on the other hand, need to find out, urgently, if a few more of our guys can play to the requisite standard.

As I keep saying, assuming the talent is evenly spread amongst all the AFL clubs, to play at the requisite standard there is no substitute for games of AFL experience to play at that level. So for us to play well this season, it depends so much on our senior players being fit on the field in order to carry the younger players who make the senior team and how quickly those younger players can learn the structures and set plays devised by the coaching staff in order to play winning football. There are no quick fixes. There are no magic solutions to playing winning football in a competition where the AFL uses an equalisation scheme to spread the talent. So to say after one meaningless practice match that the sky is falling in and that we don't have the team to make any progress into the 2018 season is understating all the hard work the club has put into the preseason.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Except that I didnít watch the practice game and am just saying what Iíve been saying for a couple of years about our lack of competent AFL-standard players. Nothing seems to change.

The sky is not falling because of a practice match. Rather, the roof has caved in because of a series of compounding poor decisions since 2012. Collingwood has brought itself back below the rest of the pack.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies2016 



Joined: 12 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:06 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
Pies2016 wrote:
The other issue with using practice matches as a form indicator, is that every club has different ideas and agendas as to what they want to get out of it.
Unless youíre inner sanctum, nobody knows on here what the clubs priority was at the selection table.
Some clubs genuinely set out to win ( usually the ones who struggle for memberships ) Other clubs just want to put miles into the legs of particular players. Some clubs want to look at juniors and others want to experiment with positional changes or structures. There are even occasions when opposition coaches get together and discuss match ups they want to see unfold that could work for the benefit of both teams young players.

If Buckleys focus on that game was to win it, then that isnít a good look.
If he had other priorities, then I just donít see the need for any concern ....yet.


The concern isn't whether we won or lost. That is irrelevant.

Apart from not being able to move the ball down the ground and not being able to score, the concern is the continual basic skill errors from players that are in our best 22. That those errors continue to occur, even in a slow paced practice match, is a problem.


Absolutely a valid comment and I donít think anyone is shying away from the fact that we looked very ordinary on the day.

For me, I refuse to get caught up in practice matches because much more often than not, the outcome isnít about the need to win.
As long as players remain aware that winning isnít everything, you will never get a team that is 100% mentally switched on towards winning and playing theirr role as best they can. Sure there will always be a winner and a loser on the day but it means nothing.

Currently we are a list that has to many bad ball users but we still produce the odd good , great win against the odds a couple times a year.
We do this by applying manic pressure and simply force the opposition into mKing more errors on the day than we did. Itís a hard brand of footy to play week in, week out and if that is going to be our brand in 2018, then I can guarantee Buckley isnít going to ask for that type of effort in the opening practice match of the season.

You may yet be completely right and that we prove to stagnate yet again but for the above reasons, Iím not quite ready to throw the toys out of the cot yet ( and thatís not a direct crack at you )
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies2016 wrote:
...

Currently we are a list that has to many bad ball users but we still produce the odd good , great win against the odds a couple times a year.
We do this by applying manic pressure and simply force the opposition into mKing more errors on the day than we did. Itís a hard brand of footy to play week in, week out and if that is going to be our brand in 2018, then I can guarantee Buckley isnít going to ask for that type of effort in the opening practice match of the season.

You may yet be completely right and that we prove to stagnate yet again but for the above reasons, Iím not quite ready to throw the toys out of the cot yet ( and thatís not a direct crack at you )


It's unsustainable over the course of a whole season. Also, people seem to think that pressure and good ball use are mutually exclusive. Logically, that's not the case and even practically it's probably not the case.

Certainly, it's possible (at least in these impoverished times) to win a premiership with a team of bad kicks (if the players' strengths compensate for it), but Eade (for example --- I'm sure lots agree) implies that the reality of bad kicking is ignored in our game plan and certain players' decision-making.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Johnno75 



Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I never thought we were a very skillful team back in 2010. But the game plan suited the list we had. We certainly werenít conceding 5-6 goals a game with back half turnovers. Mick coached to the strengths of the list he had.

Even if we just concentrate on minimising those f$&@ing turnover goals from the back half or when switching the ball through the corridor we will win a shitload more games.

_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy.
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 + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 22 of 23   

 
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