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
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MatthewBoydFanClub 



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:25 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Three things kill your chances of winning:

Turnovers (which can be mitigated by playing players behind the ball)
Losing the contested footy
Failure to convert on the forward line

Mostly it was first two that cost us any chance of beating GWS. The only way of fixing the above is hard work on the training field and failing that, you need to turn the list over to find players who can execute the needed skills on the field. If you screw up your list management as I believe the club has done after we won the 2010 flag, all you can do is rebuild the list again, which is what I believe the club is doing.

Again, it's too early to say if what we are doing is working because how can you judge players with a handful of games experience? All you can do is put a group of players out on the field which combines experience, youth and the necessary skills and hope they gel together as a team. Ultimately if they don't, the coach is responsible for his win - loss record and resigns (or gets sacked) if he doesn't achieve the results that the board is hoping for.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:32 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Woods wrote:
...

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. ...

There are many ways to skin a cat. But media brainwashing has nothing to do with this. Probably people, including coaches, are influenced by the last genuinely good premiership team/club, whose coach emphasizes kicking skills. (Incidentally, there were no high-flying marks in AFLX that I recall. And suspect kicks could probably get away with it in AFLX exactly because they had space and time and were thus under zero pressure. [Don't ask me why Crisp still couldn't convert goal opportunities in those circumstances.])

Ugliness is subjective, but Collingwood 2010 was not even remotely ugly football to me. And it had plenty of individually talented players at or nearing their peaks.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Johnno75 



Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:00 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:
Three things kill your chances of winning:

Turnovers (which can be mitigated by playing players behind the ball)
Losing the contested footy
Failure to convert on the forward line



So why can't our coach always play a player behind the ball (full time sweeper where they let no forward get behind them) and attack our 50 from the flanks a bit more. Lets just start by trying to concede 3-4 fewer goals a week from turnovers and never play Adams off the back flank and have him at the contested ball always, no questions asked.

_________________
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  
MatthewBoydFanClub 



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Adams only played at half back because we were down on numbers to play there (Howe, Scharenberg, Murray not in the side). I'm assuming Adams will be back in the middle for the next game.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
brett71 



Joined: 04 Oct 2010


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:03 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Woods wrote:
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.


What a load of tripe. Buckleys game plan is based on clean movement of the ball when we do not have the cattle to implement it. This means we gut run all day when there are turnovers. Malthouse had the same skill deficiencies and played a game plan that played to our strengths. Buckley seemed to go out of his way to change our game plan to give credence to why he was the new coach.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Woods 

Buckley - turns boys into men


Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

brett71 wrote:
Woods wrote:
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.


What a load of tripe. Buckleys game plan is based on clean movement of the ball when we do not have the cattle to implement it. This means we gut run all day when there are turnovers. Malthouse had the same skill deficiencies and played a game plan that played to our strengths. Buckley seemed to go out of his way to change our game plan to give credence to why he was the new coach.


Not since the bye last year. Now its grunt, grunt, grunt.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Geek 



Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Glenroy

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnno75 wrote:
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.


We also recruited for Mick's gameplan. It needed determined players who attacked man and ball and on the day, put the team above themselves. Skills were secondary. We got Thomas, Leroy, Tooves, Goldy, Maxy and so on.

I don't think that the club has recruited for Buckley's gameplan. It needs players who can win a contest, think quick, get the ball out to someone in better space, run and kick with precision to forwards who lead at the ball carrier.

Now granted, we have very little of that but even so, if they could have kicked straight at goal last year, we would have played finals.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:
I think Adams only played at half back because we were down on numbers to play there (Howe, Scharenberg, Murray not in the side). I'm assuming Adams will be back in the middle for the next game.


The word is that Adams will be played off the half back line, enabling Maynard to take his place in the midfield.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^
Well, let's see where Adams plays in JLT2. If it off half-back again, that might indicate something's afoot.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure I understand the implication of that.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

RudeBoy wrote:
BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:
I think Adams only played at half back because we were down on numbers to play there (Howe, Scharenberg, Murray not in the side). I'm assuming Adams will be back in the middle for the next game.


The word is that Adams will be played off the half back line, enabling Maynard to take his place in the midfield.

Please tell me thatís a joke?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:
...
The word is that Adams will be played off the half back line, enabling Maynard to take his place in the midfield.

Please tell me thatís a joke?

P4S, please clarify: do you want to be told it's a joke as in "haha", or would you prefer ")#(%&@#%"?
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
Page 23 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