This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Big T wrote:I'm sure Fly won't be using the same tactic in the preliminary. He must realize melbournes inaccuracy cost them the game and they would have won comfortably otherwise. and yes our defence did well but comeon, blind Freddy could see we were.lucky.
Lucky? You must be a troll. Won 3 of the 4 quarters, we missed our fair share:
* Elliott X 2 in first quarter
* Mihocek X 2 one in first one in second
In fact we should have been 6 goals up at quarter AND half time. Melbourne have had no cohesion and efficient forward line for years and lucked out in 2021 in a Covid year with a dud Bulldogs defence.
Big T wrote:I'm sure Fly won't be using the same tactic in the preliminary. He must realize melbournes inaccuracy cost them the game and they would have won comfortably otherwise. and yes our defence did well but comeon, blind Freddy could see we were.lucky.
Lucky? You must be a troll. Won 3 of the 4 quarters, we missed our fair share:
* Elliott X 2 in first quarter
* Mihocek X 2 one in first one in second
In fact we should have been 6 goals up at quarter AND half time. Melbourne have had no cohesion and efficient forward line for years and lucked out in 2021 in a Covid year with a dud Bulldogs defence.
Big T wrote:I'm sure Fly won't be using the same tactic in the preliminary. He must realize melbournes inaccuracy cost them the game and they would have won comfortably otherwise. and yes our defence did well but comeon, blind Freddy could see we were.lucky.
Lucky? You must be a troll. Won 3 of the 4 quarters, we missed our fair share:
* Elliott X 2 in first quarter
* Mihocek X 2 one in first one in second
In fact we should have been 6 goals up at quarter AND half time. Melbourne have had no cohesion and efficient forward line for years and lucked out in 2021 in a Covid year with a dud Bulldogs defence.
Nope just a man with an opinion, same as you
I think those people saying "Brisbane cant play the MCG" might get a rude shock on Grand Final day. Just like against Port they will be switched on from the first bounce and can play for 100 minutes. Its going to be a struggle for the ages I suspect (Hope Im wrong tho)
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.�
My impression is that this Brisbane team is slightly above the other teams in the finals. They seem well organised and have talent in abundance. That is not to say that they can’t be beaten but it will be difficult to achieve this. The other teams are just about on par and I would back us to beat them. Maybe other posters can assure me that we will beat the Brians at the G but to me they have looked awesome and hard to match up on.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm
It has been hypothesized that the dimensions of the Gabba are very favourable to Brisbane's game style. If you compare the dimensions of the Gabba with the MCG in fact there does not appear to be such a huge difference (the MCG is 139 m wide and 162 m long, while the Gabba is 137 m wide and 156 m long). However, there are clear differences.
Here is an article dating back to 2020 (when the GF was played at the Gabba) which gives quite an in depth analysis of the differences in conditions at both grounds. One of the contributors to the article is Jason Akermanis, who knows a thing or two about playing at both venues. One thing he said which is of great interest is that the ball goes much higher when bounced at the Gabba, and the bounce is much easier to predict than at the G. He also mentioned that the field at the Gabba is much more shielded from wind, while in contrast the G is very exposed to wind. The article gives a breakdown of where most goals are scored from at the G compared with the Gabba. https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2020 ... index.html
I actually think it's all about what happens between the ears of players. Home ground advantages, are predominantly mental or emotional advantages imho.
Cam wrote:What was interesting was watching us play Malthouse/Buckley style around the boundary for most of the game, I guess we might have done that because it was slippery, to reduce corridor turnovers perhaps.
Melbourne didn't seem to be 'denying' us the corridor, we just didn't really go there much. Perhaps we thought that would screw with all their planning for us doing that? The arm wrestle was Goodwin backing his guys in a packmark contest like recess at high school every time they went inside 50. Quite incredible that they didn't try another tactic, especially after quarter time.
Another thing at the ground was there was not much footage of the Maynard incident. They briefly showed Maynard flying and colliding... but no aftermath, no is he moving or not moving straight after it etc. In fact I watched Fritsch kick the goal and hadn't even realised that there was someone down.
Yes I was more concerned with Jordy limping off the ground !
RudeBoy wrote:I'm surprised no-one has commented on the fact that JDG injured his knee in the first quarter - a moment before the Maynard/Braishaw clash. He managed to play out the game, with strapping on his knee, but clearly it hampered his performance.
Hopefully the week's break will enable him to fully recover, and with the return of Nick Daicos, give us a major boost in the midfield. I am supremely confident we have the team to go all the way and win the flag from here. Go Pies!
That’s a good point about Degoey getting injured.I think you are the first poster to mention it.He was off the field for about ten minutes and when he did come back on his knee what heavily strapped.I think it did hamper his performance.Hopefully he will be in better shape when we play again in two weeks time.
Thursday night’s qualifying final started in brilliant fashion for Collingwood, before outlasting Melbourne by 7 points. The opening term saw the Magpies put the Demons to the sword with 4 early goals against Melbourne's solitary goal resulting in scoreboard pressure and an early lead of 20 points at quarter time. The second quarter was tightly fought with hardly any goals being kicked which resulted in both teams kicking one goal each and Melbourne winning the term by 3 points to reduce Collingwood's margin to 17 points at half time. The third term was when the Magpies had all the answers to each challenge Melbourne had posed, with the Pies booting 4 majors to 2 and increase their half time lead by 8 points to 25 points at three quarter time. The last quarter saw Collingwood go goalless and Melbourne score three goals to have an ouside chance of victory. Despite Melbourne's resurgence, the Woods took several match-saving marks in defence to ensure Collingwood's victory by 7 points to confirm a home preliminary final in a fortnight's time.
Collingwood won their statistical categories from key indicators such as kicks by +7 (212 - 205), intercept possessions by +4 (84 - 80), turnovers recorded a deficit of -4 (80 - 84), while hit-outs had a differential of +15 ( 48 - 33 ) and stoppage clearances had a margin of +1 (33 - 32). Tackles were in Collingwood's favour by +1 (62 - 61), followed by marks, which were won by +9 ( 77 - 68 ), with uncontested marks won by +15 ( 68 - 53 ), and intercept marks had a gap of +4 (84 - 80). Melbourne dominated the vast majority of the key statistical categories on offer, but still failed to win the game. They won their key indicators from disposals by +6 (325 - 319), recorded a differential of +13 for handballs (120 - 107), while contested possessions were up by +14 (153 - 139) and uncontested possessions were won narrowly by +1 (164 - 163). Clearances were claimed by +4 (44 - 40), with centre clearances won by +5 (12 - 7), while Tackles Inside 50 had an advantage of +4 (13 - 9), +6 for contested marks (15 - 9), Marks Inside 50 were +1 ( 9 - 8 ), and Inside 50s had a differential of + 32 (69 - 37), which amounted to nothing at the end of the night.
Steele Sidebottom (22 disposals @ 46%, 411 metres gained, 10 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 5 intercept possessions, 18 kicks, 4 handballs, 5 marks, 6 tackles, 4 clearances, 4 stoppage clearances & 4 Inside 50s) patrolled the wing with class and a high work rate to win the ball both ways. Sidebottom was prepared to work defensively to provide a marking option for his teammates as they exited the ball from defence to commence transition play. Sidebottom was also keeping his decision-making very simple by kicking long to contests or finding a loose target when it was on offer.
Tom Mitchell (21 disposals @ 57%, 231 metres gained, 14 contested possessions, 7 uncontested possessions, 5 intercept possessions, 8 kicks, 13 handballs, 2 marks, 4 tackles, 3 score involvements, 4 clearances, 2 centre clearances, 2 stoppage clearances, 2 Inside 50s & 4 Rebound 50s) generated ball movement from stoppages by releasing handballs from packs to his teammates who could then have time and space to kick the ball forward. Mitchell had an impressive third term where he won a couple of crucial centre clearances of which he was able to kick forward and give his forwards opportunities to score goals.
Jordan De Goey (19 disposals @ 53%, 325 metres gained, 9 contested possessions, 10 uncontested possessions, 13 kicks, 6 handballs, 3 score involvements, 4 clearances, 4 stoppage clearances, 2 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) looked to conjure and produce territory with each of his possessions in a game where time and space wasn't afforded. De Goey capitalised on his shot at goal in the third term to thwart Melbourne's charge.
Mason Cox (9 disposals @ 56%, 34 hit-outs, 7 contested possessions, 2 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 5 kicks, 4 handballs, 2 marks, 6 clearances, 6 stoppage clearances & 2 Inside 50s) held his own against Max Gawn before tiring late in the game. Cox was able to get his hand to the ball more often than Gawn but couldn't parlay those hit-outs to advantage from the centre. Cox managed to take matters into his own hands by taking the ball from the ruck at stoppages to clear the ball six times, which was unorthodox.
Darcy Cameron (8 disposals @ 62%, 14 hit-outs, 6 contested possessions, 2 uncontested possessions, 7 kicks, 3 marks, 2 contested marks, 3 score involvements, 2 clearances & 1 goal) had an impact early with a contested mark up forward of which he converted a goal from it. Aside from that, Cameron never really got going and was eventually subbed out of the contest for Jack Ginnivan who had an impact when he came on for him.
Jack Crisp (23 disposals @ 61%, 500 metres gained, 11 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 4 intercept possessions, 14 kicks, 9 handballs, 3 marks, 2 tackles, 1 goal assist, 3 score involvements, 5 clearances, 4 stoppage clearances, 4 Inside 50s, 3 Rebound 50s & 1 goal) was lively and damaging with his run and creativity off half-back where he broke some lines, attempted daring kicks and runs to receive handpasses in the corridor, while kicking long to contests when there was nothing on. Crisp managed to kick an excellent goal from outside 50 in the opening term to give his team reward for effort and show true reflection on the scoreboard.
Will Hoskin-Elliott (20 disposals @ 60%, 468 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 18 uncontested possessions, 8 intercept possessions, 19 kicks, 5 marks, 5 tackles, 2 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 10 Rebound 50s) was a human brick wall at stages during his brilliant game in defence, where he took several marks which were pivitotal to Collingwood's victory, while giving his team vital territory that it had been conceding throughout the evening. One of Hoskin-Elliott's finest games in recent memory.
Isaac Quaynor (17 disposals @ 82%, 308 metres gained, 6 contested possessions, 11 uncontested possessions, 9 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 6 handballs, 6 marks, 2 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 4 Rebound 50s) had a reliable game in defence where he took crucial marks, while stabilising his team's ball movement and structure with effective ball use.
Jeremy Howe (17 disposals @ 65%, 320 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 12 uncontested possessions, 8 intercept possessions, 10 kicks, 7 handballs, 3 marks, 4 tackles, 2 score involvements & 6 Rebound 50s) focused on providing his team genuine rebounding power with his kicks or releasing handpasses to teammates who had time and space to use the ball effectively and accurately from defence to begin attacks.
Brayden Maynard (16 disposals @ 69%, 371 metres gained, 5 contested possessions, 11 uncontested possessions, 7 intercept possessions, 12 kicks, 4 handballs, 4 marks, 3 score involvements, 2 Inside 50s & 5 Rebound 50s) managed to mentally overcome his incident with Angus Brayshaw and played his role well, despite the tribulations that will come at the tribunal in the coming days. Maynard was able to hold his marks before using his penetrating left foot to good effect by kicking long to a contest where his teammates would compete to bring it to ground or force a stoppage.
Darcy Moore (16 disposals @ 88%, 350 metres gained, 7 contested possessions, 9 uncontested possessions, 11 intercept possessions, 12 kicks, 4 handballs, 4 marks, 2 contested marks & 8 Rebound 50s) stood up and led by example with his actions, where he took his marks, and created strong rebounds from the defensive arc to offer his team protection at all costs.
Oleg Markov (13 disposals @ 92%, 193 metres gained, 2 contested possessions, 11 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 7 kicks, 6 handballs, 5 marks, 5 tackles & 3 score involvements) played within his limitations by taking simple options with each kick and handpass that he executed, while stabilising the situation calmly with marks that put a halt to any reurgence the Demons had on offer.
Brody Mihocek (15 disposals @ 67%, 376 metres gained, 8 contested possessions, 7 uncontested possessions, 10 kicks, 5 handballs, 6 marks, 4 tackles, 1 goal assist, 5 score involvements, 4 Inside 50s & 1 goal) was a focal point up forward with telling marks being taken up between the wing and half-forward, of which he created forward entries, while his tackling pressure was at a good level. Mihocek was able to maintain Collingwood's lead during the second quarter where goals were at a premium.
Bobby Hill (13 disposals @ 77%, 299 metres gained, 8 contested possessions, 5 uncontested possessions, 2 intercept possessions, 11 kicks, 2 handballs, 5 marks, 4 tackles, 2 Tackles Inside 50, 6 score involvements & 3 goals) ignited Collingwood with the first two goals of the game and remained lively throughout the evening. Hill would impact the game in the third term to increase Collingwood's lead heading into three quarter time. Hill also managed to take marks higher up the ground when it was required, while sticking his tackles up forward.
Beau McCreery (10 disposals @ 50%, 296 metres gained, 4 contested possessions, 6 uncontested possessions, 3 intercept possessions, 9 kicks, 3 marks, 4 tackles, 1 goal assist, 3 score involvements & 4 Inside 50s) worked high up the ground to take his marks and create entries for his teammates up forward, while tackling again remained as a hallmark of McCreery's game.
Daniel McStay (7 disposals @ 86%, 131 metres gained, 3 contested possessions, 4 uncontested possessions, 4 kicks, 3 handballs, 4 marks, 2 Marks Inside 50, 2 tackles, 1 goal assist, 4 score involvements & 2 goals) made his mark on the game with an impressive third quarter where he took critical marks up forward, before going back and kicking two valuable goals.
Collingwood's next game will be against GWS Giants on September 22 at the MCG. The return of Nick Daicos is imminent and will be a crucial cog in the team's ball movement upon his return to the side. Brayden Maynard will hopefully avoid suspension at the tribunal in the coming nights. As for the team, dominate the opposition at all times, make every shot at goal count over four quarters. Shall the Magpies achieve their objectives, they will be booking their first Grand Final appearance since 2018.
Last edited by JC Hartley on Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cam wrote:What was interesting was watching us play Malthouse/Buckley style around the boundary for most of the game, I guess we might have done that because it was slippery, to reduce corridor turnovers perhaps.
Melbourne didn't seem to be 'denying' us the corridor, we just didn't really go there much. Perhaps we thought that would screw with all their planning for us doing that? The arm wrestle was Goodwin backing his guys in a packmark contest like recess at high school every time they went inside 50. Quite incredible that they didn't try another tactic, especially after quarter time.
Another thing at the ground was there was not much footage of the Maynard incident. They briefly showed Maynard flying and colliding... but no aftermath, no is he moving or not moving straight after it etc. In fact I watched Fritsch kick the goal and hadn't even realised that there was someone down.
I wasn’t rapt by the frequent long bombs down the line either. I can understand it with a few minutes to go, but not earlier. I commented on the night that it was like the bad old days and the only rationale I could come up with was to tire Gawn out by making him jump for so many balls! There were a couple of times when a switch was on, but was ignored. Melbourne, like Hawthorn, let our backs kick laterally and then tended to push numbers to the middle to stop our run. It’s a pity because our blitz offence worked well earlier in the year.
I’d like us to move the ball much quicker after an opposition point. It’s been noted before that the longer the kickout takes, the greater the chance of the opposition scoring a goal. I don’t know if it’s accurate, but my impression is that in recent months the back are taking a lot longer to kick it allowing the opposition to organise and push us laterally. I’d like more Collingwood 2022 v Essendon with that final desperate passage Pendlebury, Moore, Bianco, Elliott -> goal. Maybe Pendlebury should take more kick outs.
Magpietothemax wrote:It has been hypothesized that the dimensions of the Gabba are very favourable to Brisbane's game style. If you compare the dimensions of the Gabba with the MCG in fact there does not appear to be such a huge difference (the MCG is 139 m wide and 162 m long, while the Gabba is 137 m wide and 156 m long). However, there are clear differences.
Here is an article dating back to 2020 (when the GF was played at the Gabba) which gives quite an in depth analysis of the differences in conditions at both grounds. One of the contributors to the article is Jason Akermanis, who knows a thing or two about playing at both venues. One thing he said which is of great interest is that the ball goes much higher when bounced at the Gabba, and the bounce is much easier to predict than at the G. He also mentioned that the field at the Gabba is much more shielded from wind, while in contrast the G is very exposed to wind. The article gives a breakdown of where most goals are scored from at the G compared with the Gabba. https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2020 ... index.html
Heard the radio discussing last night how the GABBA is a fast track, which is something I have always thought of Marvel as, so it would definitely explain along with those points why the Lions do so well at Marvel compared to the G.
There has been little comment on the fact that last Thursday one of our three AA players, Josh, was very quiet. It says that he got 14 possessions, and 51 AF points, and to my eyes he turned it over badly several times.
Was he tagged ? Overawed ? Any other theories on why he was unusually lacking in influence and damage ?
If Josh can weave his magic in the prelim it’ll surely move us up a gear.
