Autopsy Round 1, 2021 = Pies 53-69 Dogs

[Lip Gallagher]

I watched some highlights today and thought Cox played really well. Started barking orders in the 4th which was great to see.

Would be handy if we happened to win a few centre bounce clearances.

 

[sr36]

I dont want us to do that at all. We've just come out of a dicey contract situation and bringing in someone excellent would put us right back into it. The last thing the club needs is another 800k tied onto a player like Kelly who won't be able to lift us to a premiership alone.

Yeah, we should be saving our free agency bucks for contention time. Spending on a younger bloke we bring in as a trade would be a different story though.

 

[No SPIN]

I don't think Hines criteria values pace highly enough. But McCreedy, Chugg and Reef are supposedly fast. I think Rantall might be pretty quick too.

Hine also recruited Treloar, Stevo, Noble IQ so not sure he devalues pace.

 

[surfer1]

The women's team outscored the men's

 

[Matt_352]

A lot on here saying 'we'll be ok' yet in the same post saying 'we won't be a contender'. How is that ok? Isn't that the objective?

Y'know, it's a competition, meant to be better than the competition. That is the objective no?

It's not f*n ok!! We've just thrown yet another window out the f*n window and somehow that's ok!?

Are we the ain'ts and the chalet dweller dees fans now? We just accept mediocrity now? Meanwhile the blose and bombouts will pass us by this year, the mob over the rail line will probably win it again, yet that's ok.

Nah FO! It's not f*n ok!

It's not ok I am fccccking pissed

 

[sr36]

Hine also recruited Treloar, Stevo, Noble IQ so not sure he devalues pace.

Hines been very open that we score kids against a list of criteria to rate them. I'm not suggesting that he devalues pace. I'm suggesting that it's not weighted heavily enough in his criteria. We've added a lot of plodders over the last 7 years.

 

[Mateyman]

Footscray didn't win this game. Collingwood lost it. The squandered chances were everything. The enormous possession differential is meaningless in scoring terms.
1. The game strategy and the tactics used by Collingwood were correct. The were plenty of opportunities provided to the forwards, and the defenders held their ground throughout the game.
2. The skill errors that cost Collingwood the game came from the experienced players. The dropped marks and poor passes were rarely from the newer players.
3. Henry was not ready. His nervousness was palpable on screen even. Dropping him might damage his confidence further. What to do.
4. The biggest problem for the team is the centre bounce. As has been the case for many years, Collingwood does not clear the ball from the centre often or well. Whoever is responsible for what happens there needs to change his approach or be replaced. We have been vulnerable there for years, sometimes with an elite bunch of players in there, and sometimes like yesterday with a weak line up. Since the personnel have no effect, it must be the methods. As a ball watcher, I don't really understand the fine points of centre square work, but the coach in charge of that line doesn't seem to either.
5. Like our players, the umpires were subject to a lot of skill errors. Pushes in the back were adjudicated in a very random way, and geography seemed to be quite a problem. More than a dozen sub 10m kicks were awared as marks, half a dozen got a play on, and Maynard ran a good 30m from full back without a bounce or a penalty.
6. Players deliberately dragging opponents into the prohibited zone should not be rewarded. In our game they were. In the Richmond game I heard the umpire tell the players to"take him out" when they appealed for those 50's. I also noticed that the players completely ignore that instruction, but at least no undeserved 50's were given.
7. Daicos does not belong in the forward pocket at this stage in his career.
8. Tyler Brown showed a bit.
9. Ruscoe didn't.
10. Grundy was patchy.
11. Moore was brilliant.

Yeah I tend to agree with most of this. Clearances seem to be a structural issue.
Structurally I thought we were actually better than the Bulldogs last night - the number of basic skill errors was why we lost rather than structural issues. I thought our forward line was actually largely functional somewhat unusually.

 

[Kappa]

Taylor Adams

3

Taylor Adams

Age

31

Ht

181cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.9

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.4

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

4.8

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

20.4

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

5.9

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

18.2

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

7.2

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

was terrible, turns the ball over in the midfield so often and burns the team

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Taylor Adams was terrible, turns the ball over in the midfield so often and burns the team

He's been like this his entire career

 

[No SPIN]

Hines been very open that we score kids against a list of criteria to rate them. I'm not suggesting that he devalues pace. I'm suggesting that it's not weighted heavily enough in his criteria. We've added a lot of plodders over the last 7 years.

If there is a new weighting needed because the rules have changed, then you can’t blame Hines for not having predicted the increased need for pace in 2021. We have not lacked pace in recent years.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Did we actually get through the game unscathed on the injury front? Surely hammies will be pinging left right and centre at training next week.

 

[Scodog10]

All good points but even trying to set aside my dislike of Thomas, didn't see what you saw. Saw a lot of hands on his head, leaving his opponent free and some bad decisions/option taking.

However was more interested on your thoughts on Murphy as like those who see something in Sier (which I haven't seen since 2018), I haven't seen it Murphy either. I can't see the future in either of those two players.

Anyway, I will sit and watch replay tomorrow.

I don’t see it either re Murphy, but he’ll be in the frame along with Steele and C Brown. Whether Murphy plays will probably boil down to the number of changes. Like Sier, T Brown and Daicos he’s that wave that should be impacting despite relative inexperience. The big question is how long you persist before going down the Macrae, McReery, Rantall and Bianco path.

 

[jmac70]

what does he weight more heavily?

Apparently plodding.

 

[GreekLunatic]

Swap chole Molloy for Thomas

 

[sr36]

what does he weight more heavily?

I'm going solely on what outcomes have been, not having seen the criteria. But I think we've drafted a lot of pretty decent all round footballers who lack pace or another outstanding attribute to be good afl players.

If you're using criterion based selection, you're only as good as your criteria, and I think our criteria has resulted in a lot of all round solid footballers who are NQR for AFL, as they don't excel in one area which would make them good role players. Hawks and Tiges recruited with a preference for kicking skills and the pace to suit their coaches game plan. We've gone for all rounders, thus we don't have decent role players to slot in and contribute to our game style.

 

[danielnajdek]

Swap chole Molloy for Thomas

She should teach some AFL boys how to kick straight. Petracca missed a soda today while she kicked one straight through the middle.

 

[Roverjg]

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly:

On a night where it was difficult to find many positives:

Good:
Moore had 17 possessions at 95% disposal efficiency. 12 marks (9 intercept) with 6 contested. Was impassable at CHB. Provided constant run off HB.

Our backline collectively (Moore, Roughie, Howe, IQ, Madgen, Bruz).

Pendles was our best midfielder despite having a mixed game. He dropped several marks, missed targets (6 direct turnovers) and got caught with the ball. However, he was one of our best players forward of centre. He had 7 I50’s and was involved in 6 score involvements and 2 direct goal assists

Bad:
Our midfield collectively. Did not fire a shot. The Doggie’s midfield started the game with a rocket and ran our midfield off their legs. Our midfield could not go them.

Will the Brodie Grundy

4

Brodie Grundy

Age

30

Ht

202cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.5

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

9.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

HO

32.0

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

9.6

5star

CL

4.0

5star

HO

34.6

5star

D

13.8

4star

K

5.2

2star

HB

8.6

5star

CL

2.6

5star

HO

20.6

5star

of 2018/19 please stand up!!. He was towelled up by the tag-team of English and Martin. He had no presence at all

Adams had an uncustomary poor night. He was towelled up by the Doggies midfield. 7 clangers with one direct turnover resulting in a Doggies goal. Missed a mark and resultant shot on goal that he would normally swallow

Ugly:
The Doggies had nearly 160 more possessions than us (which indicates we were constantly chasing the player with the ball. Yet the Doggies had 5 more tackles than the Pies (52-57). The Pies had 104 attempted tackles but only managed to lay 52 tackles equalling 50%. The Doggies continually broke the Pies tackles. The pies couldn’t lay a tackle and couldn’t break a tackle. The Pies forwards managed 4 tackles I50 with Cox and Thomas failing to lay a tackle

Despite all the talk preseason from Bucks of a more aggressive and direct game, what was dished up was more of the same slow and stagnant ball movement. There was no semblance of a game plan last night.

Daicos had a break-out season last season playing on the wing after several lacklustre seasons in the forward line. So where did Bucks play him? Forward…

The continued regression of our forwardline singularly and collectively. 5 marks inside 50 for the night (Cox 2, Mihocek 2 and Elliott 1) to 11.

WHE void of any confidence. On a steeper trajectory to oblivion than a down-hill mountain skier. 42 goals in 2018, 19 goals in 2019, 11 goals in 2020. His sublime foot skills have all but deserted him. On multiple occasions he had the ball going forward under no pressure with a team-mate on their own near goal, only to kick it directly to the opposition. 84% game time for 4 kicks – 3 direct turnovers. No presence whatsoever. We are better off playing a youngster and putting experience into them. Even if they don’t get possessions it is still more than what the Hyphens has offered for over 12 months.

Sier… 1 kick and 8 HB’s – 3 clangers. Looks slow. The most effort he demonstrated was when he remonstrated with the umpire in the third quarter for not awarding him a free-kick. Was not sighted.

 

[No SPIN]

I'm going solely on what outcomes have been, not having seen the criteria. But I think we've drafted a lot of pretty decent all round footballers who lack pace or another outstanding attribute to be good afl players.

If you're using criterion based selection, you're only as good as your criteria, and I think our criteria has resulted in a lot of all round solid footballers who are NQR for AFL, as they don't excel in one area which would make them good role players. Hawks and Tiges recruited with a preference for kicking skills and the pace to suit their coaches game plan. We've gone for all rounders, thus we don't have decent role players to slot in and contribute to our game style.

You need to be far more specific - there are huge generalizations above that apply to all clubs.

Hawks have struggled and made very bad recent choices, ( Scully Patton) while at the same failing to build via the draft. So I can’t see your point with the Hawks.
Rich I agree.
But again I don’t see how your original criticsm that Hine doesn’t valuing pace stands - frankly it’s Moot unless he had the ability to predict rule changes.

 

[HeadInTheSand]

If there is a new weighting needed because the rules have changed, then you can’t blame Hines for not having predicted the increased need for pace in 2021. We have not lacked pace in recent years.

Good to see you are still as delusional as ever.

Has pace ever been an undesirable commodity?

 

[sr36]

If there is a new weighting needed because the rules have changed, then you can’t blame Hines for not having predicted the increased need for pace in 2021. We have not lacked pace in recent years.

Needing pace isn't to do with standing the ark. Tiges have been using their late picks on it for 8 years, whilst we've been using our late picks on handy players who are athletically challenged. This year was the first year we talked about drafting for needs and picked a couple of late guys with pace and a KPF.

 

[No SPIN]

Good to see you are still as delusional as ever.

Has pace ever been an undesirable commodity?

Good see you continue to lack simple comprehension.
Please quote where I’ve said pace was undesirable.

 

[No SPIN]

Needing pace isn't to do with standing the ark. Tiges have been using their late picks on it for 8 years, whilst we've been using our late picks on handy players who are athletically challenged. This year was the first year we talked about drafting for needs and picked a couple of late guys with pace and a KPF.

So now your whole argument boils down to Hine valuing pace less than one team - Rich.
I’d say Hine is in very good company with the vast majority of recruiters being in the same boat.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

I dont want us to do that at all. We've just come out of a dicey contract situation and bringing in someone excellent would put us right back into it. The last thing the club needs is another 800k tied onto a player like Kelly who won't be able to lift us to a premiership alone.

I don't like us doing it at all either, but if it's what had to happen, and its really speculation at this stage, to get us into a better salary cap position by removing majority of the salary from our books, then one year l can deal with.
The reporting is that with all the players traded off our books, it has still opened our cap by $2M, and that's with us paying towards Treloar's contract.

 

[sr36]

So now your whole argument boils down to Hine valuing pace less than one team - Rich.
I’d say Hine is in very good company with the vast majority of recruiters being in the same boat.

Over the last decade most of the Pies draft picks have been pretty late - we traded for a strong top tier and needed to fill out the 22 with draftees. Our drafting hasn't worked. We've had a criterion based system. The criterion resulted in us drafting a heap of non-talls who were pretty good allround footballers, but athletically challenged or hail mary talls.

Of our late pick non-talls who have made it or look likely, you've pretty much got: Phillips, Langdon, and Noble. I don't think it's a coincidence that all of them have an athletic attribute where they are excellent in terms of AFL standards, Phillips is an elite endurance runner, Langdon very quick, Noble very quick with good endurance. Have we drafted any others who had an excellent athletic trait? Meanwhile a heap of guys have fallen by the wayside, who were handy footballers - probably likely to be better at lower leagues than those who have made it, but were sub par athletically in the AFL.

I actually think the opposite is the case with the talls - we've recruited them on athleticism, whereas I think you need to recruit your late talls on how good they are in a contest and how well they read the ball flight. That's where you get success.

Over the last decade, we've built our team from the two guns who were already there, recruits, a couple of high draft choices and father sons - our lack of success with late picks is why we have the bottom half of our team let us down. I'm suggesting it's to do with the criteria not valuing athleticism high enough in terms of non-talls. What do you put it down to?

I think it's a good thing that we picked Chugg and McCreery late (when Hine said he went for needs rather than his criteria based selection). But I think it's a concern that 3 of the 4 we selected on criteria - Henry, Macrae and Poulter - sound like they aren't quick. Hopefully they are good enough to not need to be.

 

[No SPIN]

Over the last decade most of the Pies draft picks have been pretty late - we traded for a strong top tier and needed to fill out the 22 with draftees. Our drafting hasn't worked. We've had a criterion based system. The criterion resulted in us drafting a heap of non-talls who were pretty good allround footballers, but athletically challenged or hail mary talls.

Of our late pick non-talls who have made it or look likely, you've pretty much got: Phillips, Langdon, and Noble. I don't think it's a coincidence that all of them have an athletic attribute where they are excellent in terms of AFL standards, Phillips is an elite endurance runner, Langdon very quick, Noble very quick with good endurance. Have we drafted any others who had an excellent athletic trait? Meanwhile a heap of guys have fallen by the wayside, who were handy footballers - probably likely to be better at lower leagues than those who have made it, but were sub par athletically in the AFL.

I actually think the opposite is the case with the talls - we've recruited them on athleticism, whereas I think you need to recruit your late talls on how good they are in a contest and how well they read the ball flight. That's where you get success.

Over the last decade, we've built our team from the two guns who were already there, recruits, a couple of high draft choices and father sons - our lack of success with late picks is why we have the bottom half of our team let us down. I'm suggesting it's to do with the criteria not valuing athleticism high enough in terms on non-talls. What do you put it down to?

Apart from KPF, our recruiting has landed 3 Top 8 finishes, 2 Top4 , 2 PF and a GF in the last 3 years.
I don’t see the panic of holes in our list like you, given the youth recruited and cap space we’ve created.

Game Plan seems more an issue than cattle.