Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Neil Appleby wrote:I can't believe that Collingwood would be looking at losing its only experienced, big-bodied defender (Nathan Brown) and trading another in Jack Frost. What do we get in return? Lachie Keeffe? Perhaps, but he hasn't played in two years and his decision making was suspect in my opinion. This leads me to suspect Collingwood has something in mind. I hope we have something in mind that is being kept under wraps. Surely we do?

I don't think we do.

Please leave this spud in fremantle. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

mattdally wrote:Please leave this spud in fremantle. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Guys a just watched a replay of the Pies vs. Freo game from June.
Whilst Mayne's tackling was solid, he has lost any pace he had, and I thought struggled to get to the contest. I've gone cold on the whole concept now.
May as well keep Blair.

I was thinking yes about Mayne without being totally convinced, thinking he would be a Clement type recruit, but I say that without much research on him.
I have heard he has slowed down but has composure and may be a good distributor from the backline. He is also a tackling machine so I thought he would cover the ground well, but I havent kept an eye on him so Im not totally convinced now.

Neil Appleby wrote:I can't believe that Collingwood would be looking at losing its only experienced, big-bodied defender (Nathan Brown) and trading another in Jack Frost. What do we get in return? Lachie Keeffe? Perhaps, but he hasn't played in two years and his decision making was suspect in my opinion. This leads me to suspect Collingwood has something in mind. I hope we have something in mind that is being kept under wraps. Surely we do?

I've come around on this. You don't actually need big bodied defenders. Swans, easily the best defense in the league, have none (Alir and Alex Johnson tallest at 193 and 194cm, but they're not "big"). Hawks have one in Frawley. Even up forward the Hawks have Roughead and no one else worth mentioning. The Swans have Franklin up forward but he's not a good contested mark. And look what they've done with Tippett: playing mostly ruck when he's their best contested mark and a very good forward. A clear pointer that contested marking has lost much of its value.

I've been a big defender of Cloke and Brown and have felt they are critical to our team. I've changed my mind. The game is very different now. Movement and mobility are key all over the ground and the really big bodied players are now optional.

^^ Interesting read fellas.

piedys wrote:

mattdally wrote:Please leave this spud in fremantle. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Guys a just watched a replay of the Pies vs. Freo game from June.
Whilst Mayne's tackling was solid, he has lost any pace he had, and I thought struggled to get to the contest. I've gone cold on the whole concept now.
May as well keep Blair.

The horror, the horror!

AN_Inkling wrote: I've been a big defender of Cloke and Brown and have felt they are critical to our team. I've changed my mind. The game is very different now. Movement and mobility are key all over the ground and the really big bodied players are now optional.

When did you change your mind?
I always read your posts and enjoy your analysis. I am interested in why you now think Travis Cloke is "optional". What, in the last day or so, has made you change your mind?

Magpietothemax wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote: I've been a big defender of Cloke and Brown and have felt they are critical to our team. I've changed my mind. The game is very different now. Movement and mobility are key all over the ground and the really big bodied players are now optional.

When did you change your mind?
I always read your posts and enjoy your analysis. I am interested in why you now think Travis Cloke is "optional". What, in the last day or so, has made you change your mind?

Developing over the last few years as one on one contests continue to diminish. Didn't change completely though until watching the finalists this season and after accepting that Cloke won't be here next year. The Dogs, Hawks and Swans all have one or two big-bodied key defenders between them and key forwards are not having much of an impact.

It's a running game now. All game plans are built on it and the more you have the better you are. You can have big players but they either need to be extremely good or also mobile. When a team is able to apply enough pressure and has good team defense, it's actually a benefit to have smaller defenders who can quickly fill gaps and also rebound. The size of the opposition doesn't really matter when there's only 10-15 contested marks total in a game.

Of course, you need to be good all over the ground to nullify these big forwards. If you're getting badly beaten in the middle and giving up too many marking opportunities then you're in trouble.

So basically your analysis is that big bodied players are potentially a liability because their lack of running power will harm the overall mobility and running power of the team. Evan one player who is too slow could be a deadly disadvantage, given the intensity of the competition. I also understand the concept of team defence. Team defence has made a huge impact this year in the conceptual understanding of the game.Defence is the responsibility of the entire team through tackling pressure and especially through the dynamism and ferocity of the midfield. So I can see that team attack is the reverse side of that coin. But is it true that there is no longer any place for contested marking? We saw in Cloke's game against GWS how powerful contested marking can still be. Our midfield was rampant that game, and our team attack was deadly. Hence a player with the capacity for taking strong contested marks was still a potent factor that the opposition defence was forced to cover.

thompsoc wrote:

piedys wrote:

mattdally wrote:Please leave this spud in fremantle. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Guys I just watched a replay of the Pies vs. Freo game from June.
Whilst Mayne's tackling was solid, he has lost any pace he had, and I thought struggled to get to the contest. I've gone cold on the whole concept now.
May as well keep Blair.

The horror, the horror!

I know, I know... the irony isn't lost on me.
The reality is neither of them are the answer we so desperately seek...

AN_Inkling wrote:

Magpietothemax wrote:

AN_Inkling wrote: I've been a big defender of Cloke and Brown and have felt they are critical to our team. I've changed my mind. The game is very different now. Movement and mobility are key all over the ground and the really big bodied players are now optional.

When did you change your mind?
I always read your posts and enjoy your analysis. I am interested in why you now think Travis Cloke is "optional". What, in the last day or so, has made you change your mind?

Developing over the last few years as one on one contests continue to diminish. Didn't change completely though until watching the finalists this season and after accepting that Cloke won't be here next year. The Dogs, Hawks and Swans all have one or two big-bodied key defenders between them and key forwards are not having much of an impact.

It's a running game now. All game plans are built on it and the more you have the better you are. You can have big players but they either need to be extremely good or also mobile. When a team is able to apply enough pressure and has good team defense, it's actually a benefit to have smaller defenders who can quickly fill gaps and also rebound. The size of the opposition doesn't really matter when there's only 10-15 contested marks total in a game.

Of course, you need to be good all over the ground to nullify these big forwards. If you're getting badly beaten in the middle and giving up too many marking opportunities then you're in trouble.

I agree with you 100%. That finally dawned on me when Cloke was dropped for the first time this season and I thought about why he was dropped. I posted a little while ago about it being close to the end of the road for big less mobile and less agile forwards such as Cloke and Hawkins.

It was interesting last night to sit up high watching the game unfold as a whole. I specifically looked at the running patterns of Franklin as compared to Hawkins and that was a clear indication of why one will continue to be a good player and one looks like he is finished. Hawkins was a clear liability. He does not have the luxury of remaining deep forward. Continually running to defensive of centre and then back was too much for him. When he did get the ball he was too tired to even kick it properly.

It's a development I really don't like. I would love to have a return to the days of the big guys in the goal square. We miss you Plugger.

Magpietothemax wrote:So basically your analysis is that big bodied players are potentially a liability because their lack of running power will harm the overall mobility and running power of the team. Evan one player who is too slow could be a deadly disadvantage, given the intensity of the competition. I also understand the concept of team defence. Team defence has made a huge impact this year in the conceptual understanding of the game.Defence is the responsibility of the entire team through tackling pressure and especially through the dynamism and ferocity of the midfield. So I can see that team attack is the reverse side of that coin. But is it true that there is no longer any place for contested marking? We saw in Cloke's game against GWS how powerful contested marking can still be. Our midfield was rampant that game, and our team attack was deadly. Hence a player with the capacity for taking strong contested marks was still a potent factor that the opposition defence was forced to cover.

No, not over with just no longer necessary. I used to think you had to have at least one big bodied, strong marking forward and at least one big defender. That's no longer the case. You can now succeed with a small defense or a small forward line. The non-negotiables now are team defense, pressure and cohesion. There's no longer a specific mix of body types or skill types needed to be a successful team.

I too am a believer of the high pressure/team defense game, run up run back run up run back and so on.

If you like to watch teams who play for eachother, have cohesion and high press please have a look at Liverpool, English premier league, this season, they will win it or go at least top four.

Jurgen Klopp has molded his team into a team of gut busting runners who follow an established game plan. He has world class strikers who sit on the bench if they dont do the team thing.
He also is a great communicator and players play for him.....alot of love and strong bonds made in a short amount of time. (Luke Beveridge comes to mind). Maybe Bux has got strong bonds, IDK Im not privy to that.

Apart from bonds and love etc, Im afraid we need to have a team of mobile endurance runners to start with as a platform. Perhaps medium forwards that can take a grab and can run all day ( Ben Lennon? ) could become valuable players.
The one thing that frustrates me about Cloke is that he can run all day and he can take a grab, but somehow it hasn't clicked for him, whereby once he was as influential as they came. I still believe he is worth more than a third round pick. If he goes to the dogs Beveridge may turn him around and what a bargain pick up that will be to our direct competitor.

AN_Inkling wrote:

Magpietothemax wrote:So basically your analysis is that big bodied players are potentially a liability because their lack of running power will harm the overall mobility and running power of the team. Evan one player who is too slow could be a deadly disadvantage, given the intensity of the competition. I also understand the concept of team defence. Team defence has made a huge impact this year in the conceptual understanding of the game.Defence is the responsibility of the entire team through tackling pressure and especially through the dynamism and ferocity of the midfield. So I can see that team attack is the reverse side of that coin. But is it true that there is no longer any place for contested marking? We saw in Cloke's game against GWS how powerful contested marking can still be. Our midfield was rampant that game, and our team attack was deadly. Hence a player with the capacity for taking strong contested marks was still a potent factor that the opposition defence was forced to cover.

No, not over with just no longer necessary. I used to think you had to have at least one big bodied, strong marking forward and at least one big defender. That's no longer the case. You can now succeed with a small defense or a small forward line. The non-negotiables now are team defense, pressure and cohesion. There's no longer a specific mix of body types or skill types needed to be a successful team.

I think the Hawks and Swans to an extent have made do with what they have. Hawks last year had Roughead, Hale and Lake. This year they use the Ruckmen to rotate deep forward so they still have one big bodied forward, they just don't rely on them to win 15 contested marks in the forward 50.

IMHO it's not being tall and/or big bodied that makes someone a liability, it's mobility and endurance, being able to run, make multiple leads, chase and tackle. Cloke used to be able to do that, Hawkins can't.

Rance is a big bodied strong defender but he's also quick, has a great tank and uses it.