Cam Hooke’s Collingwood Life: Review Round 6 and Preview Round 7

Greetings, True Believers. Well, we Won. None of the statistics would show this as a likely outcome (more on this below). The Coach acknowledged this noting that the team Won based on their accuracy and the “want to win”. Can’t disagree.

 

From the perspective of the Pie supporter I can appreciate the game and the team performance, but I don’t like it. I’d much prefer a solid game in which we dominate the scoring as much as everything else.  Selfish? Sure is.

 

Round 6

 

Collingwood 15.3.93 defeated Essendon 12.10.82.

 

A couple of general comments first:

 

 

• See the comments in the Coach’s interview (below) – very positive; we’re in for an interesting few seasons;
• Love the teams’ enthusiasm and support to each other, as demonstrated very clearly by the team on each of Ginnivan’s successes (not to underplay his own, personal, enthusiasm), Crisp’s goal and, most importantly (to me), following Noble’s mistake; and
• The game numbers don’t really add up (see more below). In Q1 we dominated the play with little real result (we should have been four or five goals up) whereas on the few occasions the ball went into their 50, they scored. Our Forward line is still in a state of flux.

 

Game Timeline. Have a look at the Timeline at www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/3862#timeline. It shows how close the game was until Q4. Note the critical ‘goal for goal’ play throughout the game with the exception of early in Q4.  The game, Goals scored by Quarter:

 

• Q1                   3 (us) / 2 (them).
• Q2                   3 / 2;
• Q3                   3 / 4;
• Q4                   6 / 4; and
• Total               15 / 12. And we Won, noting the Scoring Shot differential – 18 (Us) / 22 (Them).

 

Summary from the AFL website? Essendon ended up winning contested possessions 123-114, clearances 43-31 and inside 50’s 52-48 but the difference was from turnovers. Collingwood scored 56 points from turnovers with 44 coming from defensive half chains. Collingwood has been effective going forward (in Q4). The Magpies scored five goals from nine inside 50s, going at a conversion rate of 56%. Essendon average a goal per inside 50 rate against of 22% – ranked 4th worst in the competition.

 

Match Report.  www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/3862.

 

Coach’s Comments. www.afl.com.au/video/749486/full-post-match-r6-magpies?videoId=749486&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1650876138001. Worth watching/listening. Most significant comments from the coach – “we want a team that has a go…we won’t die wondering” and “we’ll make mistakes; it’s what happens next that is important”. And Ginnivan’s presence at the press conference makes for interesting viewing.

 

Statistics & Lessons:

 

Team Statistics (identifying only those numbers where there was a significant difference):

• Hit Outs                               36 (us) / 36 (them);
• Clearances                          31 / 43. The next step. We have lost any equivalence of the HO numbers:

• Centre                      11 / 18. We were being ‘sharked’ by Essendon’s Midfield at Centre bounces; and
• Stoppages                20 / 25. As above;

• Disposal Efficiency              75.7% / 79.8%. Across the whole game;
• Inside 50s                            48 / 52. The critical step towards goal;

• Disposal Efficiency    37.5% / 46.2%. Our disadvantage in Inside 50 numbers is worsened through our                                               DE; and
• Marks                        9 / 17. Should have been a major advantage to them. Lucky for us they couldn’t kick                                      straight;

• Scoring Shots                      18 / 22. Also should have been an advantage to them. Then the goals?
• Goals scored                     15/12. And the game was Won.

 

Application. The sum of Contested Possessions and Tackles, as a measure of application, gives us – 166(us) / 163 (them) – a reflection that both sides worked hard, no side dominated.

 

Possessions. I don’t usually comment on this because it’s mostly irrelevant. In this case Possessions were 338 (us) / 387 (them) reflecting their ‘keep’ens off’ tactics of short passes and possessions. Their Uncontested Possessions were 217 / 267 reflecting this approach.

 

Free Kicks. The flaws in the 50m penalty were demonstrated, again. Don’t like it. A compromise solution proposed by some is to convert it into a 25m penalty. As always it is the timing and location of Frees that is important, however, the numbers can be significant – 16 (us) / 22 (them). That is a significant difference. The absence of consistency in Frees between Grundy and Draper was hugely annoying ; as was the awarding of Frees for attacking below the knees. I was frequently confused.

 

So, what is going on? The use of the corridor was terrific when we got our hands on the ball. Our Midfield was dominated by Essendon, particularly as reflected in the Clearances and Inside 50s, even without the Disposal Efficiency difference. Based on the numbers, we shouldn’t have Won. However the reverse has applied to us in the last couple of games. Best focus would be, in Krueger’s absence, to rebalance the Forward line talls, and, with the Midfield consider alternative approaches. Essendon showed just how competitive they could be, even against our HO wins.

 

Players. Krueger’s departure in Q2 was difficult. His replacement by Callum Brown required major adjustments in the Forward line – not sure they’ve had the same six, yet, this season. A replacement for Krueger may consider Cox or some from the VFL side who have been performing – go to www.afl.com.au/vfl/matches/4198. Check the replay video from the VFL game against Essendon – some impressive performances. Other players were more notable by their absence.

 

Best. Listed Best were: Ginnivan, De Goey, Crisp, Pendles, Mihocek, Howe, N. Daicos and Moore. A big list; Grundy must have been close given his Goal Assists and work, particularly in Q4 when, obviously, injured.

 

Ground Reporting. Did anyone go? I would love some more ‘ground reporting’ please?

 

 

Round 7

 

Collingwood versus Gold Coast

 

Sunday, 1 May 2022 at the MCG; bounce at 1.10pm.

 

The Gold Coast Suns currently sit 13^th on the Ladder with a percentage of 88.6% based on two Wins and four Losses compared with our eighth place and 107.2% percentage based on 3 and 3. But it is early in the season and these places depend very much on which teams they have faced and, now, the effect of serious injuries (just added that). More, as we get into the season.

 

Gold Coast: Focussing on this year and identifying their Best each week:

 

• Community Series. GC defeated Geelong by 23 Points at Metricon. Best – Miller (RR), Anderson (C), Rowell (Rover), Ainsworth (HF), Witts (R) and Lukosius (HF);
• Round 1. GC defeated the WCE by 27 Points in Perth. Best – Miller (C), Rowell (RR), Ballard (CHB), Rankine (FP), Witts (R), and Fiorini (I/C);
• Round 2. GC Lost to Melbourne on the GC. Best – Miller (C), Anderson (r), Collins (FB), Rowell (RER), Casboult (CHF) and Fiorini (IC);
• Round 3. Lost to GWS by 26 Points in Sydney. Best – Rowell (RR), Weller (HB), Casboult (CHF), Fiorini (IC) and Sharp (IC);
• Round 4. Win over Carlton by 30 Points on the GC. Best – Witts (R), Weller (IC), Anderson (r), Miller (C), Powell (BP) and Collins (FB);
• Round 5. GC Lost to St Kilda by 26 Points at Marvel. Best – Miller (C), Anderson (Rover), Markov (IC), Ellis (W), Weller (HB) and Powell (BP); and
• Round 6. GC thumped by Brisbane by 52 Points on the GC. Best – Collins (FB), Rowell (RR), Ainsworth (HF), Swallow (W) and Holman (FP).

 

Injuries: Go to www.goldcoastfc.com.au/news/injury-update. Check later in week.

 

Deductions?

 

The GC rely very heavily on a very small number of talented players, most in the Midfield (plus the FB). If you win the Midfield battle, you are well on the way to winning the game. The GC are no “easy-beats”. They have run close to a number of teams well above them on the Table but have frequently run out of steam late in the games. Some things to consider:

 

• May be worth tagging Rowell or Miller (each may be Centre or RR);
• Collins will be a standard challenge for our Forwards; and
• Ruck to counter Witts?

 

Anything else, people? Your views?

 

Who to watch:

 

• Witts (ex-Pie, Ruck, current Suns B&F);
• Rowell (RR / Rover);
• Miller (RR / Centre);
• Anderson (Rover); and
• Collins (FB).

 

Us

 

Injuries: Krueger and Grundy (probably / now confirmed as I am writing this).

 

Team:

 

• A need to replace two key position players – FF and Ruck and add some speed into the Backline:
• In? Bianco, Henry and Begg; and
• Out? Krueger, Grundy and Madgen.

 

Things to do – same as last week:

 

• Focus on the ruck battle – very important for the next step – Clearances, then the Inside 50s;
• Seek to shark the Clearances in the Centre bounces and at stoppages around the ground;
• Better establish Forward targets – a variety is essential. Please do not take Moore out of the Back 6;
• Maintain the speed of movement; avoid stoppages or delays (particularly amongst the Backline) – open the game up;
• Continue to enjoy your footy; and
• Pursue the execution of the high-intensity Game Plan for the entire four Quarters.

Your thoughts would be welcomed.

 

Result

 

• My Result. Collingwood to Win by 39 Points (I reduced this margin by 20 Points on hearing about Grundy). BOG – De Goey with 33 Disposals, 10 Clearances, 3 Tackles and 1 Goal; Ginnivan to get 5, again. Your thoughts? 

 

Go get em, boys.

 

1. No FTA TV coverage. Go to FOXTEL or KAYO or head off to your friendly pub or club.

 

Weather. Cloudy and dry, but rain is forecast the day before. May be as slippery surface. Avoid moulded-sole boots.

 

Round 8

 

Saturday, 7 May; bounce at 1.45pm.

 

Collingwood versus Richmond.

 

Other

 

• Footy Almanac. Go to www.footyalmanac.com.au. More specifically go to www.footyalmanac.com.au/?s=Hooke for the history. Readers can make comments at the end – interesting reading. Highly recommended.

 

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
One-off financial contribution – CLICK HERE
Regular financial contribution (monthly EFT) – CLICK HERE