Post Match. Pies down to Dogs. All comments, please.

Match previews, reviews, reports and discussion.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
JC Hartley
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: South Yarra

Post by JC Hartley »

Under Friday night lights at Marvel Stadium, Collingwood produced its worst performance of the season by gifting the Western Bulldogs early goals in the opening term, which provided the catalyst for a loss to the Bulldogs by 48 points. The opening term was where the game was won and lost, as the Magpies could not win any clearances or complete their work up forward where marks were taken inside 50, but either missed shots at goal or turned the footy over which allowed their opponents to waltz down the other end and got better looks closer to goal and converted the bulk of their chances. The next two quarters were competitive without very many goals being scored, before an early rally in the last quarter saw the Woods reduce the deficit beneath 5 goals to 27 points with sufficient time remaining on the clock, before a controversial 50 metre penalty against Jordan De Goey for umpire dissent saw the Dogs kick away to officially put the game to bed.

Collingwood did not win very many statistical categories on the night. The Magpies had gains from hit-outs by +3 (38 - 35), intercept possessions were won by +2 (66 - 64), +1 for contested marks ( 9 - 8 ), and tackles also had a margin of +1 (56 - 55). The Western Bulldogs took complete control of the remaining categories from sources such as disposals by +114 (437 - 323), kicks had a differential of +86 (269 - 183), +28 for handballs (168 - 140), while contested possessions were up by +40 (146 - 106), and uncontested possessions had an advantage of +84 (286 - 206). Clearances were won by +16 (43 - 27), with centre clearances won by +8 (15 - 7), while stoppage clearances had a differential of +8 (28 - 20). Marks went in favour of the Bulldogs by +44 (129 - 85), with uncontested marks up by +45 (121 - 76), with Marks Inside 50 won by +3 (14 - 11), and Inside 50s were won decisively by +22 (68 - 46). Tackles Inside 50 was the only category (8 each) that drew level.

Jack Crisp (24 disposals @ 75%, 561 metres gained, 7 contested possessions, 17 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 13 handballs, 5 marks, 5 tackles, 5 score involvements, 5 clearances, 2 centre clearances, 3 stoppage clearances, 4 Inside 50s, 4 Rebound 50s & 2 goals) was one of the only midfielders to win his own ball, win clearances and create scoring opportunities, of which Crisp was able to drift forward and kick a couple of majors.

Patrick Lipinski (23 disposals @ 61%, 361 metres gained, 8 contested possessions, 15 uncontested possessions, 2 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 12 handballs, 5 tackles, 1 goal assist, 5 score involvements, 3 Inside 50s, 2 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) had an underwhelming game against his former club, where he accumulated possessions, but did not do any significant damage with them on the night.

Taylor Adams (23 disposals @ 65%, 287 metres gained, 10 contested possessions, 13 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 6 kicks, 17 handballs, 2 marks, 3 tackles, 1 goal assist, 8 score involvements, 5 clearances, 3 centre clearances, 2 stoppage clearances, 4 Inside 50s & 2 Rebound 50s) spent the majority of the evening dishing out handpasses to teammates from packs or assisting Jack Crisp in winning clearances, which were hard to come by. Adams was the leading Collingwood player for score involvements on a night where it was difficult for the team to generate scoring shots from disposals.

Darcy Cameron (11 disposals @ 82%, 159 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 7 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 33 hit-outs, 7 kicks, 4 handballs, 5 marks, 2 contested marks, 3 tackles, 1 goal assist, 5 score involvements, 2 clearances, 2 stoppage clearances & 2 Inside 50s) competed well over the course of the night in ruck contests, but was unable to provide silver service to his midfielders for the vast majority of the evening. Cameron was also able to demonstrate that he could take marks around the ground but did not do much else.

Jordan De Goey (20 disposals @ 95%, 258 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 14 uncontested possessions, 8 kicks, 12 handballs, 7 marks, 2 tackles, 7 score involvements, 4 clearances, 3 stoppage clearances, 3 Inside 50s, 2 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) contributed to the team's ball movement and scoring shots at every available opportunity, and barely wasted a possession when he had the footy in his hands.

Brayden Maynard (23 disposals @ 70%, 532 metres gained, 8 contested possessions, 15 uncontested possessions, 9 intercept possessions, 18 kicks, 5 handballs, 5 marks, 3 tackles, 6 score involvements & 10 Rebound 50s) had no difficulties winning possessions, but had challenges in hitting targets coming out of defence. Maynard's kicking game which usually proves to be effective, wasn't as effective as they normally would be.

Jeremy Howe (22 disposals @ 91%, 500 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 17 uncontested possessions, 6 intercept possessions, 18 kicks, 4 handballs, 9 marks, 3 tackles, 2 score involvements & 8 Rebound 50s) generated quality rebound to maintain possession and took plenty of marks to minimsise the damage on the scoreboard.

Nick Daicos (21 disposals @ 81%, 266 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 15 uncontested possessions, 4 intercept possessions, 10 kicks, 11 handballs, 4 marks, 2 score involvements & 5 Rebound 50s) racked up possessions and provided rebound out of defence in another solid outing.

John Noble (18 disposals @ 83%, 409 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 7 intercept possessions, 12 kicks, 6 handballs, 6 marks, 2 tackles, 5 score involvements, 5 Inside 50s & 3 Rebound 50s) took it upon himself to run and carry the ball out of defence and into attack with reasonable success. Noble provided dash and made himself an option at every opportunity to link up scoring chains.

Darcy Moore (17 disposals @ 94%, 255 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 13 uncontested possessions, 8 intercept possessions, 12 kicks, 5 handballs, 7 marks, 2 contested marks, 2 score involvements & 3 Rebound 50s) backed himself in to take intercept marks at will, and rarely wasted any of his possessions coming out of his team's defensive zone.

Isaac Quaynor (16 disposals @ 75%, 285 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 10 uncontested possessions, 6 intercept possessions, 8 kicks, 8 handballs, 5 marks, 4 tackles, 4 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s, 3 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) offered plenty of dash out of defence, pushed higher up the ground at stages and chimed in with a nice goal to take confidence into next week in Perth.

Will Hoskin-Elliott (13 disposals @ 54%, 257 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 8 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 10 kicks, 3 handballs, 7 marks, 2 tackles, 2 Tackles Inside 50, 2 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 1 goal) made no major impact on the contest other than taking marks and winning his possessions higher up the ground as a leading target.

Oliver Henry (10 disposals @ 30%, 205 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 7 uncontested possessions, 8 kicks, 2 handballs, 6 marks, 5 Marks Inside 50, 4 score involvements & 3 Inside 50s) looked extremely threatening with the volume of marks he took up forward, but could not complete his work on the scoreboard where he did not convert any goals.

Brody Mihocek (9 disposals @ 33%, 163 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 6 uncontested possessions, 5 kicks, 4 handballs, 6 marks, 3 Marks Inside 50, 3 tackles, 2 Tackles Inside 50, 4 score involvements & 1 goal) gave his team an option at all times when the ball was moving forward and was able to clunk marks, but much like Henry, was not able to nail chances at goal when the team needed reward for effort on the scoreboard.

Collingwood's next game will be against Fremantle at Optus Stadium on May 22. A daunting and huge trip to Perth against an opponent who are currently firing on all cylinders. The Magpies will aim to have Scott Pendlebury, Jack Ginnivan and Jamie Elliott back in the line-up for the trip west which will strengthen the team by a long way. Ferocity and pressure at the ball and on the opposition will be a major starting point, as that was non-existent against the Bulldogs. If Collingwood can improve their intensity and pressure against the Dockers, they will give themselves every chance of claiming victory when it is not expected.
Last edited by JC Hartley on Tue May 17, 2022 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JC Hartley
Quincy
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:39 pm
Been liked: 1 time

Post by Quincy »

Good overview there mate.
qldmagpie67
Posts: 6075
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:41 pm
Been liked: 118 times

Post by qldmagpie67 »

So I rewatched the game again and here’s my take

Our biggest problems remain
1. Composure we lack it massively
2. Momentum when it’s against us we don’t know how to slow the game down and try for for like minutes to deny opposition the ball
3. We are playing aggressively through middle and it comes at a piece when you miss targets that’s what happened in term 1
4. Didn’t make the most of our chances
5. Senior players making terrible mistakes to often
6. Our kicking skills need loads more work
7. Our defence breaks down from the centre back there isn’t enough pressure on the man with the ball when it’s coming back
8. JDG Sidey Moore WHE all need a good swift kick what there delivered over past few weeks isn’t up to scratch for senior players

For 3/4 of the game we were even or there abouts all the damage was done on 15 minutes in term 1
If anyone doubted Pendles value to the team it showed in that 15 minute period
Ginnivan was sorely missed he would have at a minimum got 2 goals
Illness may be a small % of why we were off but every team has had those issues this year and that shouldn’t be used as a excuse
Fremantle just got thrashed by the Suns because Suns played hard contested football admittedly in wet weather but it worked
You only need to be 5% off these days and you’ll be beaten it’s as simple as that

Oh and for those who said glad we got rid of Treloar should hand in there posting privileges
See what happens when a true elite player is allowed to play in his rightful position !
We never should have had to get rid of him if he was playing for us now and allowed to play as a outside mid with us playing attacking football he would be shining like he is for the dogs
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34862
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 129 times
Been liked: 175 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

Treloar excels when the going is easy - and the going was very easy for them on Friday night. They had about 7 or 8 players who had more of the ball than our busiest - and his numbers didn’t really stand out. He’ll probably be really good against North, as well.
Quincy
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:39 pm
Been liked: 1 time

Post by Quincy »

Pies4shaw wrote:Treloar excels when the going is easy - and the going was very easy for them on Friday night. They had about 7 or 8 players who had more of the ball than our busiest - and his numbers didn’t really stand out. He’ll probably be really good against North, as well.
Yeah it is easier to play when the team is flying. But our problem remains the midfield, they should hang their heads in shame. How are defenders and forwards supposed to excel when they get monstered most weeks? It is about time some of them played on a man as well.
User avatar
Big T
Posts: 10228
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:31 am
Location: Torino, Italy
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 82 times

Post by Big T »

Quincy wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:Treloar excels when the going is easy - and the going was very easy for them on Friday night. They had about 7 or 8 players who had more of the ball than our busiest - and his numbers didn’t really stand out. He’ll probably be really good against North, as well.
Yeah it is easier to play when the team is flying. But our problem remains the midfield, they should hang their heads in shame. How are defenders and forwards supposed to excel when they get monstered most weeks? It is about time some of them played on a man as well.
We also would have lost to Essendon had we not had a 34 year old moved into the midfield in the last quarter...
Buon Giorno
User avatar
MatthewBoydFanClub
Posts: 5559
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Elwood
Been liked: 1 time

Post by MatthewBoydFanClub »

Pies4shaw wrote:Treloar excels when the going is easy - and the going was very easy for them on Friday night. They had about 7 or 8 players who had more of the ball than our busiest - and his numbers didn’t really stand out. He’ll probably be really good against North, as well.
I thought he was close to the Bulldogs best player in last year's GF. Soft players don't play well in grand finals. Worst decision we ever made offloading Treloar for virtually nothing. What makes it worse is that Treloar was loyal and wanted to stay. Is it Treloar's fault we were paying him close to a million a year? It's what Grundy is being paid today except that Treloar wasn't on a 7 year contract. And Grundy was holding us to ransom - 7 year contract or he'd walk. Treloar never did. It was Grundy we should have cleared to Adelaide for two first round draft picks when the offer was made. Ruckmen you can cover. Inside/outside midfielders like Treloar you can't easily cover. And now it's Craig McRae and Graham Wright picking up the pieces of what was a 2-3 period of self destruction as bad as the late nineties Tony Shaw period.
piffdog
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:55 am
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 74 times

Post by piffdog »

Why is no-one talking about -40 in contested possession? I cant remember seeing such a lopsided stat. Not much point having key forwards with that kind of contest work, and life pretty hard for key backs.
It's never as good/nor bad as it seems...
User avatar
eddiesmith
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Lexus Centre
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 24 times

Post by eddiesmith »

Pies4shaw wrote:Treloar excels when the going is easy - and the going was very easy for them on Friday night. They had about 7 or 8 players who had more of the ball than our busiest - and his numbers didn’t really stand out. He’ll probably be really good against North, as well.
So for Treloar playing against Collingwood is easy opposition, because they are all worse than him? Yeah, sounds like a great idea to get rid of a player better than anyone else in the team then...
User avatar
Cam
Posts: 15355
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 6:01 pm
Location: Springvale
Has liked: 19 times
Been liked: 28 times

Post by Cam »

MatthewBoydFanClub wrote:Is it Treloar's fault we were paying him close to a million a year?
Actually you want to look into that, you might not like the answer you find.
Get back on top.
Post Reply