This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
AN_Inkling wrote:
An 86 point win against a struggling team. We look to have rested some players, so it's very possible we will make changes for next week depending on how much we rate Melbourne (they're definitely better than the Saints).
If Ball's available Adams is a likely out, otherwise he should play, he is our second best main extractor.
Injury and suspension could make other selection decisions simple. If Swan and Grundy are to return, they could replace Sidebottom and Maxwell.
No he isn't.
Maybe in couple of years but right now Beams, Pendles are clearly better than him at it and JT is at least equal.
They are better at winning clearances, yes. But do we want them playing the Luke Ball role as our number 1 extractor? Certainly not Pendlebury, he's too important elsewhere, and doesn't provide the crash and bash required. Similar for Beams though not to the same degree.
This role is for someone who can take the physical punishment of consistently being on the bottom of packs. They won't get much outside ball or much clear running opportunities. We can play our classier players in the role but it's not ideal. We have two specialists in Ball and Adams who are well suited to the position. Others don't quite have the necessary strength or are better suited to more well-rounded roles.
If Ball's back I'd play him. If not, I'd keep Adams in the team.
While I agrre that we don't want our prime movers used as battering rams Adams has done nothing to justify our second best extractor tag.
He also needs to earn the right to be in the side irrelevant of whether Bally is in the side or not, potential alone just doesn't cut it.
RudeBoy wrote:Any 86 point win is a very good win, regardless of who it's against.
The main thing that I got out of the game was that we should only play one ruckman with White as the back up ruckman. It makes us much more flexible and dynamic. White's ruck work was very good and he has superb athleticism, enabling him to cover a lot of ground and get to contests. Depending on form, we should play Grundy with White or Witts with White.
Thomas played his best game yet, so should stay in the team.
Seedsman was terrific, despite his lack of conditioning. Having him and Young (who played his best game yet - just in time me thinks!) running and kicking long out of defence gives us real attacking fire power.
Despite his many Nickster critics, I thought Adams played a good game. All his 18 possessions were hard won and he threw his body in fearlessly at contest after contest. Sure, he shanked a few shots on goal, but i reckon this is more nerves than anything else. A couple of his low, fast passes were superb, so he can kick well. A few more senior games under his belt and he'll improve no end imo.
Despite his 4 goals, Fasolo needs to improve his tackling and forward pressure. Still, he adds a bit of X factor to our list, which is a good thing.
Finally, it was good to see Cloke leading out hard and fast and kicking well for goal.
With Maxy and Sidey out for a few weeks, I'd say the only changes for next week should be Grundy and Swan back in. I'd leave Ball out and give Adams a couple of weeks to build his confidence.
I agree with all of that but the 1 ruckman bit. I'm still liking the idea of having 2 legit ruckmen. White can also take a turn depending on situations.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
I'm glad we've given Witts plenty of senior games this year but I just don't feel that in this season at least either he or Grundy will be able to offer that much resting up forward and prefer the use of White as the second ruckman.
Once Reid returns it's probably a moot discussion anyway (assuming both Frost and Keeffe are available) and we'll look to play just the one genuine ruckman.
RudeBoy wrote:Any 86 point win is a very good win, regardless of who it's against.
The main thing that I got out of the game was that we should only play one ruckman with White as the back up ruckman. It makes us much more flexible and dynamic. White's ruck work was very good and he has superb athleticism, enabling him to cover a lot of ground and get to contests. Depending on form, we should play Grundy with White or Witts with White.
Thomas played his best game yet, so should stay in the team.
Seedsman was terrific, despite his lack of conditioning. Having him and Young (who played his best game yet - just in time me thinks!) running and kicking long out of defence gives us real attacking fire power.
Despite his many Nickster critics, I thought Adams played a good game. All his 18 possessions were hard won and he threw his body in fearlessly at contest after contest. Sure, he shanked a few shots on goal, but i reckon this is more nerves than anything else. A couple of his low, fast passes were superb, so he can kick well. A few more senior games under his belt and he'll improve no end imo.
Despite his 4 goals, Fasolo needs to improve his tackling and forward pressure. Still, he adds a bit of X factor to our list, which is a good thing.
Finally, it was good to see Cloke leading out hard and fast and kicking well for goal.
With Maxy and Sidey out for a few weeks, I'd say the only changes for next week should be Grundy and Swan back in. I'd leave Ball out and give Adams a couple of weeks to build his confidence.
I agree with all of that but the 1 ruckman bit. I'm still liking the idea of having 2 legit ruckmen. White can also take a turn depending on situations.
Agree, and if we could stop losing players during games then there is always the option of subbing either ruckman for another midfielder. Habitually losing players to injury makes you a little less confident to plan for that though.
Can't agree. I don't think we can fit Witts and Grundy in. They're both doing ok, but not well enough for one of them to be spending significant time up forward. Against the better teams they are too easily exploited.
When Reid's back, maybe earlier, I think only one of them will play. Playing Reid forward could be the difference between us being a decent team and a genuine top 4 team, it simply must be tried. No room for all of Reid, White, Cloke and Witts up forward. White offers more than Grundy or Witts and is mobile enough to play as a third tall. This is definitely our most damaging setup and will only be changed if performances or injuries necessitate.
Apart from a sloppy 1st 20 mins, mainly the terrible f50 entries and some lazy footy in the 3rd you couldn't ask for a more comprehensive belting. Great to finally see us go for the kill in a last qtr when well up. Probably due to piesnchess' frantic calls to increase our percentage.
swoop42 wrote:I'm glad we've given Witts plenty of senior games this year but I just don't feel that in this season at least either he or Grundy will be able to offer that much resting up forward and prefer the use of White as the second ruckman.
Once Reid returns it's probably a moot discussion anyway (assuming both Frost and Keeffe are available) and we'll look to play just the one genuine ruckman.
I don't necessarily disagree with you swoop. However getting these games into Grundy & Witts is gold for us long term. My own view is that Witts is a better 1st ruck, but Grundy provides a tremendous x-factor across half forward. Having said that, I still suspect that Grundy will be the one to go out of the team if Jesse White can stand up. I certainly think that he is a better second ruck then he is a second forward.
Apart from two lapses of concentration - at the start and half way through the third 1/4, where the aints could have punished us but missed a few shots in a row, it was a decent performance.
Margin wise it has definitely exceeded my expectations, especially after Swanny and Grundy's withdrawals and Maxy coming off so early.
And just a few thoughts on some players as usual.
Sidey had a very solid all aorund game and set up numerous shots on goal,will pay for his bewildering brainfart though.
Langdon continues to amaze with his calmness under pressure.
Frost had a good tussle with Roo and I'd declare it a 0-0 draw. Which is no mean feat in itself. Th boy is on a steep learning curve but so far has answered well to the challenge.
Blair had a few good moments but a poor game overall.
Love the Sack's beats mode but he'd want to find a pill at some stage..
Beams earned 3 Brownlow votes with yet another superb game.
Pendles was all class as usual but seemed to have something in reserve.
Loved JT's hands in close for some time now, spread well, kicking a couple was a bonus.
Clokey needed an easy kill and got it in the second half when Delaney was on one leg. Hasn't turned the corner but a small step in the right direction. Loved how everyone got around him after every goal.
White and Young played a sort of game they were recruited for. Jesse seemed to relish being on the ball while Dasher got a lot of uncontested ball but used it really well.
Like I've mentioned earlier, the prince of Perth belongs in the forward line , not because he can't defend but because we need his x-factor and skills up forward right now.
Billy had a decent game and was able to cash in when the heat went out of the game. I want more from him cause I'm greedy but he's forgiven...
Keeffe to Stanley to the cleaners, was good for his confidence.
Seeds...where do i start... he was epic, his run diminished towards the end as expected but the delivery to our forwards remained sublime.
Witts needs to spend months on end doing squats, he lacks strength and does not utilise his size properly, might be harsh but I don't think he's been all that good. Serviceable at best thats how I see his season to date.
All in all a decent percentage booster.
Melbourne will be tougher, them taking it up to Port will ensure we won't take them lightly. Looking froward to Frosty giving Dawes a bath.
AN_Inkling wrote:Can't agree. I don't think we can fit Witts and Grundy in. They're both doing ok, but not well enough for one of them to be spending significant time up forward. Against the better teams they are too easily exploited.
When Reid's back, maybe earlier, I think only one of them will play. Playing Reid forward could be the difference between us being a decent team and a genuine top 4 team, it simply must be tried. No room for all of Reid, White, Cloke and Witts up forward. White offers more than Grundy or Witts and is mobile enough to play as a third tall. This is definitely our most damaging setup and will only be changed if performances or injuries necessitate.
Just don't get this "can't play Witts and Grundy together" thinking. Unless I'm mistaken we've done that in 6 of our 7 victories. I think people have seen Witts and White do quite well against StKilda and think that's clearly the best way to go but you need to assess that against the opposition. They had Longer (who is young but will be a more than handy ruckman) and Stanley who Dwyer could ragdoll, and an undermanned defense particularly after Delaney was injured. Yes, White is tremendously athletic and the extra midfielder is a bonus but a little perspective please.
^^Can't fit them in our best team, especially if Reid is playing forward, and has nothing to do with the Saints game, I've had the same view all year.
Our rucks are a weakness no matter what we do. In big games (finals) a strong ruck who can compete for marks around the ground and command the centre square is very important. We don't have one. What we do have is two promising kids who are doing well for their age but are not yet at the level of more senior opponents. Playing them both when we have more capable players in the wings (White would likely have to miss and he is a far better third forward than Witts with his lack of mobility) would be a mistake.
We definitely should play them both as much as possible, but our best potential structure is Grundy in the ruck, White as backup and Cloke and Reid up forward. This should be our first option and only altered if it fails to fire.
Good to see that we're capable of hitting the scoreboard & thumping an opposition [regardless of who]!.... That's important - Even if for mine, we weren't all that convincing. Lots of mistakes but overall, endeavour was good.
I did keep an eye on Taylor Adams & he wasn't great. If he is doing everything right off field, on the training track & has in fact deserved his call ups via the VFL, then perhaps he might just need some love?? I mean he came to us with high expectations & he probably feels like the axe is always hanging over his head. Give him the security of stringing 3 or 4 games together in the seniors.
AN_Inkling wrote:^^Can't fit them in our best team, especially if Reid is playing forward, and has nothing to do with the Saints game, I've had the same view all year.
Our rucks are a weakness no matter what we do. In big games (finals) a strong ruck who can compete for marks around the ground and command the centre square is very important. We don't have one. What we do have is two promising kids who are doing well for their age but are not yet at the level of more senior opponents. Playing them both when we have more capable players in the wings (White would likely have to miss and he is a far better third forward than Witts with his lack of mobility) would be a mistake.
We definitely should play them both as much as possible, but our best potential structure is Grundy in the ruck, White as backup and Cloke and Reid up forward. This should be our first option and only altered if it fails to fire.
Agree, Reid returning will change the dynamic. He's still 3-4 weeks off resuming in the seniors though.
Even when he does return, I'd still like to see if Witts, Grundy, Cloke, White and Reid can work. Appreciate that in theory it makes us top heavy but until we try it, we'll never know for sure. I mean you (and many others) say it won't work, but just like me, you don't actually know. Personally, I don't see how it varies that greatly from Witts, Grundy, Cloke, White and Goldsack. What Goldsack offers in terms of pace is offset by what Reid offers in terms of marking and ball handling.
The question on Witts and Grundy is does either have the engine to play first ruck for 80% of a game?
Witts has shown he can against a sub standard team like St Kilda and when Grundy played by himself earlier this year and he could hardly move by the last quarter.
How much better is Grundy's engine now?
Can either stand up by themselves as first ruck against a competent opposition ruckman?
