See my posts above
Pfft, facts can be used to prove anything that’s even remotely true. None of that here, please.
Although… sportingpulse reckons 3 matches, 3 TIB (Times In Best) - 24 disposals 2nd BOG, 28 touches 3rd BOG, 19 & 5th BOG
As per here
Can’t do too much more than that.
I didn’t see all of the game last week, critically (although perhaps fortuitously) missing the first quarter. But my impression from Q2 when Adelaide was smashing us is that the main issue wasn’t speed, or positioning, it was decision making and disposal. We did ok in defence, we did ok in the centre, we did ok in the clearances, but when we turned it over, boy did we get smashed. That was because of how we turned it over.
Normally, the bulk of turn overs are one on one’s where everyone can see it might go either way, so there is some element of defensive positioning. Especially if the ball has gone to a one on one in the forward line. Sure, some players, especially forwards will break on the assumption our guy will win it, but not everyone. What I saw on Saturday was us breaking down on our transition towards the forward line. And that is deadly. Because players in that section of the ground have to break forward, to give the current ball carrier options. If he has nobody to pass it to, then he has to go sideways or take a fifty/fifty option. Which is not Worsfold’s game plan (at least, once we’ve broken out of defence). The consequences of making that options is if it all goes pear shaped with a poor turn over, everyone is out of position with no hope of getting back goal side of their opponents.
On Saturday we were turning it over in that transition, which left everyone out of position and scrambling to get back. The ball was then quickly rushed the other way, and for a forward line as deadly as Adelaide’s they had a field day. In the second half, we slowed down the movement and were a little more careful, and and also locked it in better into our forward line. Meaning Adelaide didn’t get to catch us on the turn over through the middle as much, and didn’t hurt us on the scoreboard to the same degree.
Now, why did we turn it over? And did this apply to Q1? I don’t know. It could have been that Adelaide was much better at bringing the pressure. Maybe we were tired from the slog in the wet. Maybe we aren’t reading where each other is yet since that team dynamic is yet to be built. Maybe it is something else, or a combination (likely).
But I wouldn’t be saying we have to panic over the midfield quite yet.
6 Likes
For me, a big reason is that we didn’t spread out of the middle quick enough, or smart enough, putting the receiving players under pressure who in turn, wither lost possession in a tackle, or disposed hurriedly and inaccurately.
Maybe. Despite asking the question I definitely know the answer on a few occasions. I thought Walla simply stuffed a few up. I thought Heppell once or twice failed to take forwards options and hand balled to someone behind, who hadn’t yet got free of Adelaide players. But as you said, there was also at least a few occasions when hand balls went to people under direct pressure. What I don’t know is if those were the only options, or if there was options they missed. I think it was the later, but would need a re-watch (and unfortunately/fortunately forgot to tape it, so won’t be happening).
1 Like
What ive seen in the first weeks is disposal fom the back half has been hit and miss,while disposal into the forward half has been reliable. Difference in round 4 was Adelaide punished us big time from turnovers in the back half. Think getting repeat forward 50 entries is a bigger issue.
I apologise, I actually missed that game when I was going through 2016 & must have thought it was J Langford. Again I would love him to be a midfielder I just haven’t seen anything that suggest it & I fear we are wasting development time on a guy who I think could be a very good forward if allowed to play there. There’s been plenty of guys like Hams, N’Ob, even Bullen in years gone past who would regularly look good at VFL level but could never impact in the seniors. I just don’t see Kyle as having the physical attributes or desire at the contest to be a competitive let alone elite mid.
Merrett started the game and most of the first quarter in the forward line. I too thought it strange but assumed it was to break a possible starting tag they thought he would cop.
Heppel started on the wing and played wing later in the carlton game too. I actually agree with this one, i think his strengths are better coming in off the square because he lacks pace at centre bounces and his clearances are rarely clean from centre bounces.
That midfield chemistry Woosh has been talking about but from Swannys article today.
Pendles and I played 200 games together. When we were at a stoppage and Pendles got it, I knew which way he was going to turn and which way he would look, so I arrived at that spot before he even got there himself. The same went if I got it out of a stoppage, as he’d turn and get into my vision before I was ready to give it.The point is, it can take up to 80 games before you start gelling as a group — and this Collingwood midfield group has probably only played 50 to 60 games together. That lack of experience can also affect kicking to forwards, as the forwards mightn’t know which way the mids pull out of a stoppage.
It’s going to take a little bit more time
4 Likes
Swans article is absolute evidence, and great insight into our dilemma ATM.
Regardless of talent, some of these boys have played 4 games together.
3 Likes
Thank you for some sensible commentary
1 Like
Swans article gives us insight.
But in 50 games time, Stanton, Jobe and Goddard would be retired. By then we’d have McGrath in the midfield and Langford too. Maybe a few more.
If it takes too much time, then we’ve wasted whatever opportunity thought we’d be challenging for over the next few years.
2 Likes
This is true, but we do need experienced players to anchor the midfield, to mentor and stabilise it and teach younger players the craft, otherwise the younger players will take longer if they have learn to work together from scratch.
2 Likes
And a mediocre midfield.
The problem is that we don’t have even a semi-capable ruckman to put in there with them.
It’s like lining up in the centre square with one less player than the opposition at the moment.
1 Like
So Luey isn’t a semi-capable ruckman? Really?
5 Likes
Luey is slow, and more importantly very slow to react when the ball’s turned over. Still decent at the tap, but he’s a prime culprit.
People are confusing quickness and speed for quick decision making. You don’t need all out speed to have a good midfield, yes you need a point of difference with speed but I’ll take smart & quick decision makers over raw pace any day.
Watson and Heppell have been utterly dreadful in making quick decisions this year and it’s hurt us, they’re holding onto the ball for far too long and getting caught often. I reckon both have been caught holding the ball more times than I can ever remember. Zerrett is sharp and on point and Parish tries his best but he’s still young, and doesn’t kick the ball enough. Instead he’s handing it off by hand to the slower decision makers of the team in Watson, Heppell & Goddard ( in fairness to Goddard he’s been good).
Overall I think we’ll be fine but I feel we need a Watson replacement on the horizon. Heppell I feel will work through as he’ll grow accustomed to the pace but Watson doesn’t have much time left regardless. A midfield of Heppell, Zerrett, Parish with a clearance player from one of Mutch or Clarke (probably Mutch). Then throw in McGrath who’ll hopefully be developed at some point and then perhaps Francis. I think we have quality building blocks we just need another young clearance beast.
3 Likes
Oh and I can’t believe how often we’ve refused to put Stants in the middle this year. I understad age but fck he was one of our best in 2015 and now we barely use him.
5 Likes
It’s taken about 15 years so far…
1 Like