Our veteran quandary

[Gerry Cooper]

I love how people blame our up and coming players for our list management problems.
However, the questions I want definitive answers for are as follows:
1) How will Pendlebury and Sidebottom get faster in 2025?
2) How will Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Crisp, and Howe get increased stamina so they can run out games in 2025?
3) How will Pendlebury, Sidebottom and our other veterans get improved reflexes in 2025?
4) How will Sidebottom reaching 350 games help us to win the 2025 premiership?
5) How will Pendlebury reaching the record for the most games played help us to win the 2025 premiership?
6) Why would youngsters play hard in the VFL if they have no chance of getting a game in the positions they normally play and train in?

If the answers to the above are negative then why are we still carrying all of them? Our older players were champions but are fading fast. Our list management is timid and conservative. There are times when clubs need to take some pain in order to improve. The current situation shows we are too scared to do that. In our patchy performance in 2024, there were some downright embarrassing performances, something we dont see very often from Collingwood even when we have been down the ladder. Unless the current situation is changed, we will see more of them and the chance for finals will be a distant dream. I reckon Wright's list planning was correct and we will rue these decisions in the years ahead.

[Presti35]

The best team will win the GF.

And maybe that will be us. Maybe it wont. But does having Sidebottom, Pendlebury and Howe hurt our chances of winning it in 2025?

[Gerry Cooper]

The best team will win the GF.

And maybe that will be us. Maybe it wont. But does having Sidebottom, Pendlebury and Howe hurt our chances of winning it in 2025?

I think there is a fair chance it will. Go back and watch all the games this year where we got run over or only just narrowly won after surrendering a lead. Compare the performance of our older players between the first half and second half in those games.

[neil]

And having significant injuries to multiple players had zero effect on our 2024 chances?
Many of our younger players second half of match were also poorer because of the lack of multiple preseasons

[SLORT]

Go back and watch all the games this year where we got run over or only just narrowly won after surrendering a lead. Compare the performance of our older players between the first half and second half in those games.

This is what has me scratching my head. Surely a club such as Collingwood, advanced, professional, cutting edge, having just won a flag, etc, would have the data that shows the endurance capacity of its players both old and young? I can see older players being injured more often, becoming slower and perhaps less flexible. But not being able to run out games? The average age of olympic marathon runners is 31.

So yeah, I don''t think that this would be related. If anything it is a symptom of the style of football we play. "Chaos-ball". Because we're one of the lowest sides for maintaining possession of the ball (also the lowest on overall marks) it means that we're often being forced to use a higher level of energy (pressure acts) to stay in the game. That's why the more skillful teams (Geelong, Hawthorn) put teams away with big winning margins, whilst our / Fly's style doesn't actually allow for this kind of result. It's a taxing style of play and will hold up well in finals. It's just also more likely to burn out players with injuries along the way and this is the risk with a team full of aging bodies.

[Gerry Cooper]

And having significant injuries to multiple players had zero effect on our 2024 chances?
Many of our younger players second half of match were also poorer because of the lack of multiple preseasons

Both of those points are also true. Put them altogether and you get Collingwood 2024. However aging playmakers who can't really run out out games at optimum performance left us highly vulnerable, particularly when opposition teams were aware of that and targeted them for extra pressure.

[Gerry Cooper]

This is what has me scratching my head.... Surely a club such as Collingwood, advanced, professional, cutting edge, having just won a flag, etc, would have the data that shows the endurance capacity of its players both old and young?
... If anything it is a symptom of the style of football we play...It's a taxing style of play and will hold up well in finals. It's just also more likely to burn out players with injuries along the way and this is the risk with a team full of aging bodies.

Also true which exposes our older players even more. They still do well in lower pressure games (ie Melbourne last round) but the higher pressure games where lightning reflexes are needed they get caught with the ball more often than not, particularly late in games, and often at important moments. One thing that did puzzle me all year was that we did little to manage these players week to week and in games. Given the high pressure, fast game style we play, I thought we would have seen more of that this year. There are a few ways it could have been done - using them as the tactical sub etc.. I think given injuries etc we were probably deprived of that luxury of flexibility, meaning our veterans had to play full games most of the time.

Also given the situation with Wright V McRae etc about the future of our veterans, it would seem there has been a lot of internal politics about that issue within the club. Maybe that affected some of the decision making on game day and selection to some unknown degree this year too.

[RudeBoy]

I've posted elsewhere that it might be a good idea if both Pendles and Sidey retire now, to enable us to promote players like Allan and DeMattia, who need regular senior games to really develop.
However......I can also understand the logic of keeping these veterans while they remain good enough, remembering that it was less than 12 months ago that the ageing Pendles took the control of the GF in the last quarter and old Sidey won us the flag with his 65 metre 'wonder goal'.
I guess I'm happy to keep them on our list, as long as they are used judiciously, often as the sub and intermittently rested, so they assist, rather than hinder the development of our next midfield group.

[qldmagpie67]

Rude I think that’s the point how we use them
If we as sub or giving them games off every 3/4 weeks (separately) then ok
Pendles has the game record within his sights but even if he played every game (23) and 3 finals he would fall short so does he go around again in 2026 or is he happy to be in 2nd place all times ?
Sidey has 332 games so needs 19 to get to 350. Barring injury (which he’s been good at avoiding throughout his career) he could possibly make it but it leaves little room for error if he gets an injury that costs him 2 weeks or so. Are we then obliged to play him no matter what each week to make sure we take injury out of the picture ?
If we land a couple mids which we seem to be targeting how does that impact the starting side roles for them ?
If I have 1 little criticism of McRae it’s he’s a romantic at heart. Meaning he will more than likely go with a veteran over a kid. This concerns me as I feel it hampered some of the development we could have got into some kids this season and going forward we need these younger players to be ready to go in 2026 or at least we need to know if there going to be any good
Time will tell but for me personally I would have retired one of Sidey or Pendles (keeping one for standard setting makes sense) and likely Howe or Cox as well (more likely Cox) to force us to fast track a couple of the kids

[Pies4shaw]

It’s simple, really - they get picked if they’re in our best 23. If they’re not in our best 23, they don’t. The records are their business, not the Club’s and must not be a consideration. Posters on here picked them as among our top 5 performers in the GB Medal and the coaches had them among our top 10 vote-getters. They are self-evidently still both very fine players - replacing them for the sake of replacing them would be silly.

There are plenty of open spots in our best 23 - if we happen to bring in a couple of midfield stars, there are lots of spots in the side with the “To Let” sign up. There are many second-rate younger players on our list and that’s our real problem. Pendles and Sidey might struggle to get a game in the Hawthorn midfield - but that’s not our midfield. After Nick and De Goey (when he is fit), there aren’t too many in there picking themselves. It would be nice if that changed in a hurry but that doesn’t, at present look likely.

The other thing that really cries out to be said here is that both are battle-hardened, give-everything players. There were plenty of mids playing in Finals over the last couple of days that you would look at and, on paper, prefer to our two elder statesmen. A lot of those players, though, choked dismally when it counted. And that’s the thing - the winning of AFL premierships has nothing whatsoever to do with racking up stats during the season. Our two have a tremendous record of standing up in those big games - you want to move them out in favour of the next Pendlebury or Sidebottom, not in favour of the next Ben Kennedy or Tim Broomhead.

[Pies2016]

Yep, if they’re good enough to hold their spot, then they play. Conversely, if a couple young blokes step up, then they replace them.

When it comes to our veterans, the club will have specific plans designed to keep them cherry ripe and not have them burn them out before the end of the season. Reduced training loads, modified programs, game day management are all tools available to preserve these guys in season. As long as a couple of young blokes step up and we bring in a couple plug and play trades, managing our vets game time should fall into place.
What we don’t want, is another season of excessive medium term injuries where the players who do remain available are then asked to do too much and go beyond their planned work loads. That’s when even the best fitness programs and work load management can go awry.

[The Black and White Lion]

Perversely we actually need to pick the young guy when there’s a 50-50 call. Too often we picked the experienced guy in 2024 through the first 3 rounds and after the bye

[Brown26]

I think the older guys are ok to keep for three reasons - the first being we don't have a massive draft hand this year. Even if we get two high draft picks for noble and our first rounder for next year (which is unlikely) we can't replace 9 30 + year olds with 2 picks.
We have a chance to rectify that next year, if we keep our first pick, trade in another, maybe score a couple of second rounders here or there, but this year, no.

Secondly, you can't buy experience off the field. This doesn't mean social media posts and going to the Tavern pre game (if it did, I'd be on an AFL list for sure!) but training standards, leadership group, mentors etc. If I were an 18 yo Dane Swan, who would I train with? Ben johnson's not there, maybe Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Crisp? Without those guys, Swanny isn't a brownlow medalist and maybe we don't win with 2010 granny.

Thirdly, these guys might still be good! When I heard Noble wanted out, I was sad for a few seconds, then reality set in and this is not a bad outcome for us. Demaita can come in HBF, we get some currency from Noble, maybe so we can trade into the first round, maybe a player. Pendles or Sidey can play off the HBF, and maybe Ed Allan can come into their spot, or if we get the next Jack Crisp in a trade for Noble, into the midfield.

The veterans aren't just the product of how long they can play for, but also training standards, role players etc. I would think we could play all our veterans in a winning team / season if other factors align.
And also I would say there probably aren't any other better players to pick at this stage. So go one more year and re assess - if we finish 17th with 2 top 20 draft picks and rebuilding, sure, scrap them all. No one can play forever, so even if we go high again some will go, but some might stay given that we wont be able to replace them all with first round picks or good players.
I would love to train with Sidebottom and Crisp and Pendlebury and Elliot - put yourself in Dan Houston's shoes or Harry McKay or Harrison Jones's shoes - sometimes the value of the player is not measure in kicks and handballs.

- Ben

[qldmagpie67]

P4S
Right now I agree if there in best 23 they play if not they don’t
But considering we seem to be chasing bigger body mids where do you envisage we play Pendles or Sidey if we land Peatling and either Hobbs or Davies ?
We hand Mitchell JDG Crisp Nick Allan who are all mids add 2 more and we have a great rotation and some depth

[piffdog]

We couldnt have retired Howe or Cox easily, given they had or had triggered contract extensions. Were never going to pension off Pendles and despite looking a touch slower at times, Sidey is still probably one of our top smartest players. I dont think you flick that out lightly.

Dangerfield and Zorko seem to be going around alright. I think there is probably more merit in more experienced players in what is becoming a tighter and tighter competition. Short of drafting more Nick Daicos's or getting the spoon and/or losing free agents and getting compo, I think experience is actually a significant competitive advantage that others can't copy.

The challenge is how do we ensure we get to September in the top 4, with those older guys primed to maximise on the advantage we have with their experience? This is something Geelong has done (with an equaly very old list) and we obviously didn't do that this year.