Cam Hooke’s Collingwood Life 2026: Round 16 Review / Round 17 Preview
G’day everyone.
As I said last week: “Okay, our Season is not dead. I have every confidence (hence, the serial optimist) we’ll get into the Eight with a few Wins under our belt.” The unfinished sentence should have read: “I’m especially looking forward to the Round 19 game against the auld enemy, Carlton. Good going Josh. 6 from 6. They have a couple of games coming – Richmond (expect a Win for Carlton) and Hawthorn (probably a bit more of a test – probably a Loss for Carlton). Incredible. What has changed? Your views?
Then us.
Go Pies
Round 16 Result:
Collingwood 15.16.106 defeated Richmond 11.6.72.
Scoring shots – 31 (us) / 17 (them). This number comparison says it all. We were nearly twice as good as them on average across the game. See comments below..
Goals scored:
- Q1. 2 (us) / 2 (them). A good start, including NickD’s pair, matched each time by them. Check the Timeline and scores at www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/8174#timeline to see the flow of the game. Scores level at QT;
- Q2 6 / 1. 7 unanswered Inside 50s with 54% scores from entries in the Quarter compared with Richmond’s 33%. Margin at HT established at + 33 Points;
- Q3 3 / 4. Up and down. They statistically Won the Quarter. We scored 3.4 to their 4.3. Margin marginally reduced at the final break + 28 Points;
- Q4 4 / 4. Also up and down. We scored 4.6 to their 4.0. We wasted scoring opportunities; they didn’t. Statistically we Won this Quarter. Final Winning margin extended to + 32 Points; and
- Total. 15.16 / 11.6. We Won.
Game Report – www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/8174
Coach’s Report – www.afl.com.au/video/1549141/full-post-match-r16-magpies?videoId=1549141&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1782553589001. He noted the establishment of momentum at the right time of the Season. Worth a watch / read.
Game Statistics
Numbers sourced from the AFL website.
| Statistic | Us / Them | Remarks |
| Disposals | 387 / 380 | Marginal difference.
Includes handball numbers – 171 / 181. Included just to highlight the marginal difference in ball-possession. |
| Hit Outs | 25 / 33 | I thought we were more seriously impacted than these numbers indicate.
Not a factual statistic. Needs ‘HO to advantage’, but is indicative of their dominance in the ball-up, which (see Clearances, below) required our Midfield to counter. |
| Clearances | 30 / 31 | Even.
More important and surprising, given their HO dominance (above). Includes 14 / 14 Centre clearances and 16 / 17 stoppage clearances. Reflects dominance by our Midfield to turn the HO deficiency into this equivalence. Well done. |
| Inside 50s | 56 / 51 | Should be a logical flow-on from the above but it isn’t. Our dominance here is a key statistic. Should lead to increased scoring – more goals, which it does. |
| Goals scored | 15 / 11 | The end result.
Looked at as a combination of the Inside 50s statistics, above, adjusted by the Disposal Efficiency inside 50’s, below. |
| Disposal Efficiency | 77.0% / 74.7% | Not too different, and not particularly important anyway. Across the entire game. |
| Individual DE > 80% | 10 / 6 | Representing disposal accuracy and inaccuracy across the game. |
| Individual DE < 60% | 1 / 2 | |
| Disposal Efficiency Inside 50 | 55.4% / 35.2% | The other Key statistic.
Our significant domination here of efficiency augments our minor advantage in Inside 50 numbers resulting in the goals scored differential. |
| Contested Possessions | 103 / 117 | UCP – 283 / 253. Reflects a fairly substantial ‘ownership’ of the ball through keep’ens off tactics (UCP and marks) passage avoiding direct competition. Across the game . |
| Possession | 43% / 42% | A key statistic. A surprise too. This indicates a reasonable parity between the sides, and therefore shared control of the game, over the whole game. |
| Marks | 122 / 94 | Includes Marks inside 50 – 20 / 13. |
| Tackles | 61 / 37 | Includes Tackles inside 50 – 7 / 10.
Reflects effort and application. |
| 1%’ers | 39 / 39 | Also reflects effort, particularly by Backline. |
| Free Kicks | 17 / 16 | These numbers surprised me, but must assume they are accurate. Certainly the umpiring was poor with obvious confusion regarding the ‘caught with the ball’ or the ‘push in the back’ offence. |
The Game
Our performance in this game was positive insofar as it was a Win. Q2 was terrific with the numbers from that Quarter influencing the ‘game statistics’. The rest of the game, however, the two sides’ performances were broadly equivalent.
Now, we know that is not the case.
We have demonstrated on many occasions that we have the List, their skills and the Game Plan to beat any other team in the competition. Unfortunately this has rarely been for more than a Quarter, very occasionally a Half of a game. To Win the Premiership we need to rectify this.
This game was not an easy Win. Richmond played well when we let them. We need to work at stopping other our opponent teams.
Crowd. 62,117. Were any of you there?
Best: AFL website reporting identified the Best as:
- NickD;
- De Goey;
- JoshD;
- Schultz;
- Frampton; and
- Crisp.
Coaches’ Votes: At www.afl.com.au/news/1550737/coaches-votes-r16-collingwood-magpies-star-nick-daicos-moves-well-clear-carlton-blue-patrick-cripps-red-hot-form-continues. Votes to Pies’ players were:
- NickD – 10 votes;
- De Goey – 7 votes;
- JoshD – 2 votes;
- Schultz – 2 votes;
- Houston – 1 vote; and
- Crisp – 1 vote.
I don’t really have any issues with the Best selections on the AFL website though would have recommended the inclusion of Houston (1 goal (great kick), 28 Disposals @ 85.7% Disposal Efficiency, 11 Marks, 1 Tackle, 1 Clearance, 429 metres Gained, 7 Score involvement, 6 Intercept possessions and 5 Contested possessions) and McCreery (10 D @ 80.0% DE, 2 M, 6 T, 2 Clr, 296 mG, 2 GA, 7 SI, 1 IP and 4 CP). You could also check Sidey and Pendles for inclusion.
VFL. Worth looking at the performances of players in the VFL competition Go to www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2055429/anderson-prolific-in-dominant-vfl-win-against-richmond. See below.
Round 17:
Saturday, 4 July Gold Coast versus Collingwood at their PFS home ground in the GC; ball-up at 4.15pm.
This game is between us in 10th position on the Ladder based on 7 Wins, 7 Losses and a single Draw and a percentage of 104.2% (happy it’s improving) and the GC in 11th position based on 7 Wins and 8 Losses with a percentage of 103.2%.
They are currently favoured to Win $2.35 (Pies’ Win) / $1.60 (GC Win) as at 29th June. Watch for changes on the AFL website.
The Season? Our Season is not over – Serial optimist.
Them
The Gold Coast finished last year in 7th place on the Ladder based on 15 Wins and 8 Losses and a 124.9% percentage. They Won the FW1 game but Lost their Semi-Final against BL, finishing their Season.
Their performance this Season is:
| Round | Win / Loss | Opponent | Margin | Location |
| Points | ||||
| OR | W | Geelong | 56 | PFS |
| 1 | W | WCE | 59 | PFS |
| 2 | W | Richmond | 68 | MCG |
| 3 | Bye | |||
| 4 | L | Melbourne | -20 | MCG |
| 5 | L | Sydney | -32 | Adelaide |
| 6 | W | Essendon | 9 | PFS |
| 7 | L | Hawthorn | -49 | Tasmania |
| 8 | W | GWS | 20 | PFS |
| 9 | W | St Kilda | 29 | Darwin |
| 10 | W | PA | 25 | Darwin |
| 11 | L | NM | -6 | Marvel |
| 12 | Bye | |||
| 13 | L | BL | -31 | PFS |
| 14 | L | Geelong | -45 | Kardinia Park |
| 15 | L | Hawthorn | -16 | PFS |
| 16 | L | Freo | -51 | Perth |
They started well and stayed in the Top 8 of the Ladder until quite recently ( R14 slipped to 9th). Last week dropped to 11th.
Of importance, with one exception – North in R11, their last five games, all Losses, have been against teams sitting at the top of the Ladder. The exception, North, while not located at the top of the list has been on the improve. As such, the GC performance can’t be doubted, particularly when compared with our most recent five games, which included Wins against WCE, PA and Richmond.
Their Best, below, is spread, incorporating both the Midfield and the Corridor.
Players to watch?
- Petracca – HF / Centre;
- Noble – HB / CHB / Wing (former Pies’ player highly regarded by all of us);
- Anderson – RR;
- B. Uwland – HB / FB/ CHB;
- King – FF;
- Rowell – CHF / Rover;
- Witts – Ruck (also an ex-Pies player); and
- Ugle-Hagan – FP.
Us
Team. There are a number of unresolved manning issues:
Ins: Moore – Backline (Fitness?)
Maynard – Backline (Fitness?)
Coe – Ruck, changing with Cameron into the forward line?
Pothajski – Forward?
Anderson – Midfield?
Also consider the inclusion of Puncher into the backline, if a position is available.
Outs: McStay;
Buller and
Steele.
Game Plan.
Not much to change. A couple of suggestions:
- Games go for four Quarters; not one or two. While the performance in the Q2 was acknowledged, take the pressure off the Pies’ Army – establish a good lead early and keep it;
- The kick-in is still not working reliably – plan and execute. This is critical. This provides the transition of the ‘ownership of the ball’ and, accordingly, ‘management of the game’ and should be seen as such;
- Again, there were way too many opponents loose (like previous games) allowing rapid ball movement by them frequently against the run of the game;
- The execution of both the kick-ins and particularly the Inside 50 attacks are happening way too slowly; opponents are being given time to pick-up our players and our free players are no longer free;
- Cover needs to be in place in all areas around packs to prevent crumbing. We were caught out with them scoring with the ball off the back of a pack. Of course, we also benefitted;
- Again, avoid the ‘impossible’ kicks at goal. Be willing to pass to a better position. Really important. Speed will improve access to free players (as above). Importantly, GA should be seen as more important to the team than the scoring; and
- Way too often passes seem to ignore the fact that opponents can, and do, move (and intercept the pass).
Your thoughts?
Weather? Cloudy but dry. Plastic boots okay.
TV? No FTA TV coverage. Go to Kayo or head down to the nearest pub / club.
Prediction? Collingwood to Win by 29 Points. NickD BOG with 41 Disposals @ 91.7% DE, 4 Tackles and 487 metres Gained. Goal kickers – Cameron – 4 goals.
Next:
We’ve got a few serious challenges coming up:
- R18 Friday, 10 July versus North at Marvel;
- R19 Saturday, 18 July versus the Auld Enemy at the G; and
- R20 Thursday, 23 July versus Adelaide at AO.
Attendance. Our next attendance is the Carlton game. Others going? Give me a call?
Reporting. Now are any of the rest of you going to this game? Look forward to your reporting? Please? And Reports from TV-watchers are equally welcome? I find it useful to listen to the commentators (prefer Kayo to FTA) who (mostly) know more about the game than we, ‘mortals’ do.
Other:
- Any feedback? Anything else?
- I would be interested in hearing how our other Mid-Season draftees are going at training noting their recognised performances at VFL level? Any comments?
A question from John Hosking, passed through John Harms (Footy Almanac) addressed to Mark Schwerdt and me. I undertook to seek information from any of our group:
| Morning! Can you or any readers solve the following query about former Collingwood, Claremont and Norwood goalsneak Ian Brewer? Whilst its widely known that Brewer was a master of the checkside punt kick for goal, what kind of checkside punt was it, how did it spin, and how did he hold the ball to kick it? I think he used to kick a checkside screw, spiral, barrel or torpedo punt by holding the ball across his body opposite to a normal screw punt the kicking the ball so it spun in the opposite direction to normal, thus curving the other way. This is a completely different to the end-over-end reverse angle goal kicks used by forwards in the modern game.
G’day Mark (& others), many thanks for this. I’ve wondered about Brewer’s checkside for years because I only saw him play for the Mighty Norwood Redlegs as a kid and have a vague memory that his checkside was a reverse screw punt. Anyway, to add to the mix, here’s what Chat GPT says:
Can you solve the following query about former Collingwood, Claremont and Norwood afl goalsneak Ian Brewer? Whilst its widely known that Brewer was a master of the checkside punt kick for goal, what kind of checkside punt was it, how did it spin, and how did he hold the ball to kick it? I think he used to kick a checkside screw, spiral, barrel or torpedo punt by holding the ball across his body opposite to a normal screw punt the kicking the ball so it spun in the opposite direction to normal, thus curving the other way. This is a completely different to the end-over-end reverse angle goal kicks used by forwards in the modern game. So was Brewers checkside a spiral punt, or end over end? This is a fascinating footy-history question, and I think your instinct is largely correct. • A traditional torpedo/screw/spiral punt spins around the ball’s long axis. The ball is held diagonally across the body and struck to create spiral rotation. • A true checkside punt is held differently from a torpedo. For a right-footer, the ball is angled roughly from 2 o’clock to 8 o’clock and struck on the outside of the boot, producing spin opposite to the leg swing and causing the ball to bend away from the body. • Historical coaching references describe the “snap/banana” grip as essentially a reverse torpedo grip, where the hands are opposite to those used for a normal screw punt. That last point is very close to what you’re describing. • He held the ball across his body, somewhat like a screw punt. • The grip was effectively the reverse of a conventional torpedo. • He struck across the outside of the ball with the outside of the boot. • The ball acquired substantial axial (spiral) spin, but in the opposite rotational sense to a normal screw punt. • The sidespin generated aerodynamic curve, causing the ball to “check” back towards goal. In other words, Brewer’s kick was probably best described as a checkside screw punt or spiralling checkside, not an end-over-end kick.
Any further comment? Happy to pass on any comments. |
Never Lose confidence. This is our year. Go Pies.
Cam
To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE
To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE
Leave a Comment