G’day all.
And another Win. Easier to be optimistic than the alternative. However, the conflict with the auld enemy is coming; Carlton now with 7 / 7 under Josh.
Go Pies
Round 17 Result:
Collingwood 15.14.104 defeated the Gold Coast 15.8.98.
Scoring shots – 29 (us) / 23 (them). This number comparison says it all. See comments below.
Goals scored:
- Q1?4 (us) / 3 (them). A really good start with two goals, matched by them. Check the Timeline and scores at www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/8180#timeline to see the flow of the game. + 8 Point margin in our favour at QT;
- Q2?4 / 4. Early scoring by them, responded to by us. Margin at HT expanded to + 12 Points;
- Q3?3 / 4. Up and down. They statistically Won the Quarter with goals scored being matched. Margin reduced with change of lead at the final break – 7 Points;
- Q4?4 / 4. Also up and down. Statistically we Won this Quarter. Final Winning margin with lead changed to + 6 Points; and
- Total?15.14 / 15.8. We Won.
Game Report – www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/8180.
Coach’s Report – www.afl.com.au/video/1554431/full-post-match-r17-magpies?videoId=1554431&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1783159340001&references=AFL_MATCH:8180. He spoke admirably about the team pressure and briefly about the ‘blue’ but of value reinforced that now is the time to establish momentum in the competition, but that time was now running out. He observed that the team had scored more than 100 Points in the last two games, something that some ‘experts’ had been critical of. Worth a watch / read.
Game Statistics
Numbers sourced from the AFL website.
| Statistic | Us / Them | Remarks
|
| Disposals | 354 / 409 | Huge difference based on their game plan – ‘keep’ens off’ – see UCP and Marks numbers, below.
Includes handball numbers – 159 / 180. Included just to highlight the difference in ball-possession.
|
| Hit Outs | 33 / 54 | Numbers indicate their dominance. See next on Clearances reflecting the Midfield performance.
Not a factual statistic anyway. Needs ‘HO to advantage’ but is indicative of their dominance in the ball-up, which (see Clearances, below) required our Midfield to counter.
|
| Clearances | 43 / 40 | As above, reflects positively on our Midfield. Well done.
Includes 15 / 13 Centre clearances and 28 / 27 stoppage clearances. Reflects dominance by our Midfield to turn the HO deficiency into this equivalence. Well done.
|
| Inside 50s | 56 / 53 | Should be a logical flow-on from the above and it is. Our marginal dominance here is a key statistic. Should lead to increased scoring – more goals, which it really doesn’t.
|
| Goals scored | 15 / 15 | The end result.
Looked at as a combination of the Inside 50s statistics, above, adjusted by the Disposal Efficiency inside 50’s, below. Statistically, we should have scored more than them.
|
| Disposal Efficiency | 72.9% / 74.8% | Not too different, and not particularly important anyway. Across the entire game.
|
| Individual DE > 80%
|
11 / 10 | Representing disposal accuracy and inaccuracy across the game not reflecting well on us. |
| Individual DE < 60%
|
6 / 1 | |
| Disposal Efficiency Inside 50 | 46.4% / 43.4% | The other Key statistic.
Our domination here of efficiency augments the minor advantage in Inside 50 numbers and should have resulted in a goals scored differential, but it didn’t.
|
| Contested Possessions | 121 / 133 | UCP – 217 / 262. Reflects their substantial ‘ownership’ of the ball through keep’ens off tactics (UCP and marks) passage avoiding direct competition. Across the game .
|
| Possession | 40% / 44% | 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 | 73 / 120 | Includes Marks inside 50 – 15 / 5.
|
| Tackles | 75 / 43 | Includes Tackles inside 50 – 16 / 8.
Reflects effort and application.
|
| 1%’ers | 46 / 36 | Also reflects effort, particularly by Backline.
|
| Free Kicks | 14 / 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.
Also I counted two 50 metre penalties to them; none for us. It is a silly rule
|
The Game
A Win is a Win is a Win. I considered our team’s performance to be much better than theirs throughout the game. But we allowed them to take control of the game and to score. It was frustrating at times.
This game was not an easy Win either. The Gold Coast played well when we let them. We need to work at stopping our opponent teams.
Crowd. 21,072. Was anyone there?
Best: AFL website reporting identified the Best as:
- NickD;
- Membrey;
- JoshD;
- Howe;
- Allan; and
- Frampton.
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. Not out yet. Keep an eye on the website.
I don’t really have any issues with the Best selections on the AFL website but might suggest you have a look at the Player Stats under the Game report – Goal Assist (GA) numbers recorded in the Basic reporting and the Score Involvement (SI) in the Advanced reporting. Maybe also have a look at the Metres Gained (mG) in the Basic reporting. Yes, I know, it’s a combination of things.
VFL. Worth looking at the performances of players in the VFL competition Go to www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2060735/vfl-match-report-midfielder-continues-strong-form-in-loss-to-brisbane. See below.
Round 18:
Friday, 10 4 July Collingwood versus North Melbourne at Marvel Stadium; ball-up at 7.40pm.
This game is between us in 9th position on the Ladder based on 8 Wins, 7 Losses and a single Draw and a percentage of 104.4% and North in 11th position based on 8 Wins and 8 Losses with a percentage of 91.1%. In terms of their most recent five games, both teams are broadly similar and each has had substantial Losses where the result was a surprise:
- Collingwood – Loss – Melbourne / Bye / Win – PA / Win – Richmond / Win – GC; and
- North Melbourne – Loss – Freo / Win- WCE / Win – Richmond / Win – Essendon / Loss – PA. Yes, I did watch the last game of R17 to make sure my comments relating to Win / Losses and the Ladder, betting and TV coverage were accurate.
We are currently favoured to Win $1.41 (Pies’ Win) / $2.93 (NM Win) as 5th July. Changed to $1.40 / $2.97 a few minutes ago. Watch for changes on the AFL website.
The Season? Our Season is not over – Serial optimist.
Them
North finished last year in 16th place on the Ladder based on 5 Wins and 17 Losses and a Draw and 76.3% percentage. They have done better this year.
Their performance this Season is:
| Round | Win / Loss | Opponent | Margin | Location |
| Points | ||||
| OR | Bye | |||
| 1 | W | Port Adelaide | 46 | Marvel |
| 2 | L | WCE | 17 | Perth |
| 3 | W | Essendon | 12 | Marvel |
| 4 | W | Carlton | 10 | Marvel |
| 5 | L | BL | 26 | Barossa |
| 6 | W | Richmond | 75 | Marvel |
| 7 | L | GWS | 7 | Manuka |
| 8 | L | Geelong | 49 | Kardinia Park |
| 9 | L | Sydney | 8 | Marvel |
| 10 | L | Adelaide | 68 | AO |
| 11 | W | GC | 6 | Marvel |
| 12 | Bye | |||
| 13 | L | Fremantle | 124 | Bunbury |
| 14 | W | WCE | 1 | Perth |
| 15 | W | Richmond | 25 | MCG |
| 16 | W | Essendon | 14 | Marvel |
| 17 | Port Adelaide | AO | ||
| 18 | Collingwood | Marvel | ||
They started exceptionally well and were still in the Top 6 of the Ladder to the completion of R7. They have since dropped to 14th place following R13; with some recent movement up a few places since. North must still be considered a reasonable chance of making the Top 10 with games against us next weekend, Melbourne (R19), St Kilda (20), Hawthorn (21), WB (22), Geelong (23) and Sydney in Sydney in R24. How many of these do you think they’ll take home the points? Leaving out Sydney, five of the other six are at Marvel Stadium; their favourite. They are currently placed .
It is noteworthy that they beat the GC by 6 Points a few weeks back.
It is also noteworthy that North have been beaten by teams well up the Ladder and have mostly beaten teams below it. Their Loss to Sydney by 8 Points is notable though it wasn’t in Sydney; as is their success (apart from the Sydney Loss) at Marvel. Their Loss tonight against Port hasn’t sunk in yet. North recovered from a post-HT deficit of 24 Points to make the last change on equal terms. Most of Q4 ran without either team scoring; Port achieved their Win by scoring the last three, unanswered goals spread over the second half of the Quarter. The North team didn’t give up, but the standard of their ball-handling fell away. Port were the better team on the day.
Their Best, below, is spread, incorporating both the Midfield and the Corridor. Both Sheezel and Davies-Uniacke have figured in their Best at nearly every game this year. It is fair to assume the team will rely heavily on the Midfield duo in our match.
Players to watch?
- Parker – FF / FP / HB (not a typo – he’s played Forward and Back);
- Sheezel – Rover;
- McKercher – HB / HF;
- Wardlaw – RR – now injured – unlikely to play;
- Xerri – Ruck;
- Comben – Defence somewhere; and
- Davies-Uniacke – RR.
Us
Team. There are a number of unresolved manning (and other) issues:
Ins: Coe – Ruck, changing with Cameron into the forward line?
Anderson – Midfield?
Outs: Maynard – injury and/or penalty?
No others identified. Your thoughts?
Game Plan.
Not much to change. A couple of suggestions:
- 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. Much improved;
- 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. Also much improved; and
- Way too often passes seem to ignore the fact that opponents can, and do, move (and intercept the pass).
Your thoughts?
Weather? Who cares? It’s got a roof.
TV? Yes, now FTA coverage on 7mate and 7+. Go to Kayo or head down to the nearest pub / club.
Prediction? Collingwood to Win by 31 Points. De Goey BOG with 34 Disposals @ 87.7% DE, 4 Tackles and 483 metres Gained. Goal kickers – Cameron – 4 goals.
Next:
We’ve got a few serious challenges coming up:
- R19 Saturday, 18 July versus the Auld Enemy at the G;
- R20 Thursday, 23 July versus Adelaide at AO; and
- R21 Thursday, 30 July versus Geelong at the G.
Attendance. Our next attendance is the Carlton game. Others going? Give me a call?
Reporting. Now are any 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?
Comments on the following Question? Nothing seen, so far?
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
Leave a Comment