I can’t remember the last time I refused to watch a Collingwood game, regardless of the result, but after listening to the game on the radio at work on Sunday I just couldn’t bring myself to relive the shattering disappointment in yet another format. Besides, after watching the replay of the St. Kilda game last week and going by our score sheet against Carlton, I imagine it was virtually an encore performance.
Usually, I would make it a point to watch the game and extract positives like the scarce edible portions within a cheap, poorly cooked piece of steak. This time around I’ve foregone that chore, because to analyse this single game would be a pointless exercise and I’d probably be overlooking the bigger problems at hand.
I’ve sat on the fence in regards to some of the topics that have been dominating Collingwood conversations so far this year, but I think it might be time to vent some frustration and be brutally honest in doing so.
First up, the game plan. Our obsession with moving the ball down the wings has been one of the most talked about aspects of our football this year; we’ve always played this way, although it has become more apparent now that it is being exposed on a regular basis. It’s not just that we don’t use the corridor, it’s also that we completely relinquish it to the opposition.
The logic behind playing the wings rests largely on the belief that if we do turn the ball over, there is a good chance that a boundary throw-in will result, thus giving us another opportunity to win back possession. The problem is that when boundary throw-ins do not result – which has happened often – the opposition are lining up in the middle of the ground and are able to carry the ball with no pressure.
Against Essendon, I was astounded when on multiple occasions we would kick to an option on the wing who was outnumbered three to one. There was so much about this that I seriously couldn’t comprehend. We always bring the ball back in down the wing, yet none of our players thought to get to the predictable spot where the contest was going to ensue?
Our players have to carry some responsibility, as with the above example they obviously didn’t work hard enough or follow what is a basic aspect of our game plan — this was made even worse when Essendon obviously predicted our movements ahead of our own players. With that said, it has to be a little hard to follow a game plan that exists because you’re apparently not good enough.
For as long as I can remember, our style of play has been clinical, inflexible and predictable. It has been this style of play that whilst enabling us to be competitive against some superior outfits, has caused us to be vulnerable to lesser clubs. Despite Malthouse objecting, Buckley was right when he said we often lose matches we should win; it has been an all too common theme that has cost us three top four finishes by my count (2006, 2007 and 2008).
When Hawthorn exposed us savagely last year – on not one but two occassions – I would have given anything to see the side try something different, to throw caution to the wind and take the game on. Supporters can stomach losses if they know that their side went down swinging and left no stone unturned, but as has been the case too often we stayed the course and lost in as regimented a fashion as when we win.
The players lack enthusiasm and passion, they simply no longer seem to enjoy their football. Personally, I think the game plan could be in some way responsible for players lacking these intangibles, as they’re no longer presented with the opportunity to take the game on and back themselves in against their opponents. Instead, they are told that they are not good enough to venture through the middle of the ground and reminded of their supposed inferiority in the most public of arenas when questions are raised about our game plan.
Our list does have deficiencies in the talent stakes, but I’ll go over that at length in the very near future. With that said, I rate the talent within our playing list higher than that of Essendon and Melbourne, yet their recent form has been considerably better than ours and a lot of it has to do with the way they go about it. Essendon are playing with a spark that doesn’t come from superior talent, but from belief and passion. It’s what saw them manufacture three goals in just as many minutes in conditions that deter scoring, whilst we capitulated and watched it unfold.
We have been hit hard by injuries, but this recent development just masks problems that have been evident for a while now. Something needs to change and whether Malthouse is capable of breathing life into this side or not remains to be seen; but I’ve grown increasingly doubtful and it has become evident that our compass is broken and our direction is wayward.
There is a lot more I would like to cover and I will soon enough. For now I will state that I love this club, but we simply cannot afford to be blindly loyal – usually a pride evoking prerequisite for the Magpie fan – given the current situation and especially if we intend on tasting some long overdue success.
I didn’t think the team played that badly on Sunday. They simply didn’t have the talent to convert forward attacks into goals. Unfortunately, Jack Anthony kicked 2.3 which for him would have been 5 straight or 4.1 at worst on any other day. Others missed easy shots. And Judd unfortunately decimated us.
I agree with all your comments on game plan and especially the observation that there is something NQR about telling players to play the wings – the assumption being that they are not good enough to play the corridor. Ours is a game played between the ears as much as on the ground. I would add that I watched Sean Rusling play a very good game in the VFL at Coburg on Saturday (although clearly a little tentative at times). If the bloke is ever going to get back to senior football (which I am confident he will), our game plan will fast make him redundant. Rusling needs some space to lead into and use his incredible pace which means the ball must come into the forward line relatively quickly. Obviously, our game plan is not built around a 17 gamer with wonky shoulders. However, Rusling may as well give up now because his value will be reduced to nil assuming continued present strategy.
Selection is another area of concern. 10L – you may also have views on this. I like this blog because ‘we do not eat our own’ here – too often a trait of a Pies fan. That said, players have been given their opportunity, have disappointed but continue to be picked. It is early days but I fear that to say our recent lateral recruits are not up to it would be to champion under-statement.
On a lighter note, I have put my money on Collingwood this weekend. $3.50 for a win under 40 points!