 Volume I. |
|
May 30th. The Colonial Watershead. Collingwood faces a watershed night this Saturday when they take on an embattled Sydney Swans at the Colonic. Personally, I've had too many nail-biters this month - the Doggies in a close one, Brisbane by 3 points, and going down to Port by 5 points. (And before that, beating the Eagles by 1 point!). I'd like nothing more than to hammer the Swans into oblivion. I'd like nothing more than to win convincingly against unconvincing opposition. I'd like to beat them by so much that despite the guarantees of the Sydney Administration, they sack Rodney Eade as a result of it. But Saturday night presents dangers. Collingwood have been good in getting back up this season following emotionally big and exhaustive wins. In fact, I thought we were going to hit our flat-spot against Port. We did in the First Quarter and spent the rest of the game fighting back. However, that close loss might be just the tonic to rouse Collingwood on one point: Close enough {including draws) isn't good enough. There's still a long way to go this Season and the line between respectability and farce is fine indeed. Just ask Richmond. Collingwood have to approach this game cautiously. Already this season I've called for Collingwood to bitch-slap Carlton into oblivion; I did the same last year when we were about to play the ailing Kangaroos. On both occasions we leaped before acceptances, and lost. So, as far as I’m concerned, I won't make the same mistake again this week with the Swans. We have to approach this game in a similar fashion to the way we approached our match against the Saints. There we were coming off our big ANZAC Day win - at that time our biggest win in 10 or 12 years. The Saints were down to a Squad of 24 fit (but I won't say "able") players and were coming off a shock-draw with the Swans after many expected them to be whitewashed. Beware of Teams facing oblivion: they sting. (But once they cross into oblivion, they stink - like Carlton). Another thing to look at in the lead-up to the game against the Saints was our preparation. We knew they'd flood like monkeys with prostrate problems. We knew they'd be buoyed by their accomplishments against the Swans a week earlier. And we knew they'd be fueled by the frustration over that game being a tie after they'd led for just about all the match. Collingwood has to prepare for a similar assault from the Swans. After their efforts against the Bombers, the Swans will be fired-up and ready to explode. However, I don't expect them, consciously and subconsciously, to be interested in a tug-of-war over Four Quarters. They'll want to hit hard early, establish a lead, and then control the game throughout - much like they did last year. So you can probably expect the Mother of all Floods again. Rodney Eade's too obstinate and entrenched to change his ways now; despite playing good, attacking football against the Bombers, (born from the necessity of being jumped early on the scoreboard), Eade will revert to their usual defensive and negating style of game - particularly now that he believes his job is safe for the Season. He'll go back to what he thinks works. You know, this is why most coaches are sacked - their refusal to adapt and evolve with the times even when tried and true methods are ailing, and failing. So, like against St. Kilda, Collingwood has to prepare for an arduous First Quarter. They have to prepare to be meticulous and patient while they build structure, develop momentum, and assert ascendancy. Stunning Steve McKee looms as a pivotally important figure for Collingwood, although that shouldn't surprise anybody now. Early last year when McKee was playing well in the ruck, Collingwood were doing well - and usually with relative ease. Since being included this year and contributing effectively to our Rucking Triumvirate of himself, Anthony Rocca, and Josh Fraser, Collingwood's stayed on the winner's list. Against Port it was when McKee was in the ruck that we were coming back. McKee (and Rocca and Fraser) will face a combination probably comprised of Ricky Mott and Stephen Doyle. Both are rookies, although Mott's done well this year. McKee has to take advantage of that; he has to realize that these guys are inexperienced, while he's something of a stalwart of 4 or 5 years. It's been a long, long, long road for McKee, and there's even further for him to go, but he has the form this year (and temporary relief from Rocca and Fraser) to dominate lesser-experienced opponents. With a question-mark over Wakelin (corky - hopefully it's not as bad as the season-threatening one which almost ended Tony Lockett's comeback), Elvis Presti is almost certain to be the first option on Barry Hall, while Clement will probably get Michael O'Loughlin. What'll actually be interesting is how the little-recognized but much-vaunted Collingwood defense comes up after last week's heartbreak - particularly if Wakelin's missing, (and assuming Richardson will remain at Williamstown to recapture fitness). Up-forward, we have the capacity to stretch the defense of the Swans with the combination of Rocca, Tarrant, Molloy, Cummings, and Fraser. The former two will be filthy over last week - Tarrant for being kept scoreless the week after he kicked 5.3 against the Lions, and Rocca for missing that shot, (as it seems to be coming to be known). Dunkley (providing he's not a late-withdrawal again) will probably get Molloy, Saddington will get Cummings, Schwabble on Tarrant, and Goodes will most-likely be forced into defense to pick up Rocca or Fraser. Nathan Buckley's another who'll be keen to atone for a quiet game while - fitness aside - Shane O'Bree is starting to regain peak-form. By the time we return from the Split Round, O'Bree should be seeing-out whole games. But the way he's being used presently, he's providing great spark and cohesion in our second halves. However, as the Chief said a couple of weeks ago, one has to wonder whether that beard's beginning to get into his eyes. Leon Davis was fantastic last week. In fact, he looked fresher than everybody else. Tarkyn Locker was also good. But at the moment we're carrying just too many players with question marks over their heads; add to the existing list the three who were injured against Port - Nick Davis (ankle), Josh Fraser (ribs), and Shane Wakelin (corky). Surely the call will have to be sent out for either Heath Scotland or Alan Didak - or both. How we come-up physically will be imperative. We had consecutive six day breaks, compounded by playing successive games on the concrete at the Colonic followed by an interstate-junket. People say the hardness of the Colonic doesn't matter, but in 2000, Wayne Carey pulled-out of most matches the week after playing on the Colonic. It might be fine for fit and healthy guys, but if they're carrying a niggle then the Colonic's going to exacerbate the problem. Another thing is that the Colonic provides an home-away-from-home for the interstaters. Because it's new they’ve played on it as many times as we have. Also, because it's enclosed they're not subjected to any adverse Victorian conditions. Even with the roof open the wind's usually kept out. It's a totally controlled, sterile environment. It's like they never have to step-off the plane. The best we can get out of it is home-town support. Last year, we would've (and did) lose this. In fact, last year the circumstances were similar - we were riding high, they were struggling miserably and the future of Rodney Eade was in doubt and besieged by speculation. The difference is, unlike last year, it's a virtual damn guarantee Eade won't be there next year, and we've now proven we can come up weekly. The Swans were great against Essendon and should've won. Actually, it would've been better if they had won - they could've gotten it out of their system and gone back to falling flat on their faces. However, it's anybody's guess whether their effort last week was a call to arms for their beleaguered coach, or whether it was a face-saving effort to avoid a public relations disaster for their Stadium Oz debut. But at some level of consciousness (or subconsciousness) it's got to matter to the Swans that they're playing for a man who won't be their next year. Hit repeatedly and hard enough early and the Swans may drop their heads and, like Carlton, begin to bide their time until a forced change invigorates them with a breath of fresh air. This year Collingwood's been good in coming and coming and coming at opposition. Even against Richmond and Carlton we were intent on fighting back, instead of just seeing-out the game. It seems that our years of despair, particularly Season-2000 for this group, have firmed the resolution of the Club. So I'm hoping one close loss won't send them into a tailspin of losses, as it has with other Finals' Contenders - such as Richmond and Hawthorn - over the years. From the opening bounce Collingwood have to be on their guard. They have to absorb the early spirit of the Swans and show they won't bow to it, which is a mistake we made against Carlton. We let them jump us when we knew they'd come out afire. Absorb the best punch from the Swans, hit them back even harder, and the Swans will break; it's established in their Administrative levels, their Coaching-Staff, the players, and even their supporters. It's not a case of if but when. Don't prolong the indecision, Collingwood. Shatter them while they're vulnerable. Later.
|
|
May 23rd. A Right Royal Ranting. You know, when I watch a game – whether it’s live in attendance or on TV – I rarely see the specifics. I mean, I can tell you who kicked the bulk of the goals and who was influential, can even tell you who was responsible for an almighty clanger, but the material details of a match, the breakdown, I just don’t see it. If you read Match Reports Net-wide, you’ll get some great blueprints of a game; when I say that, I mean who did what, where, when, how, etc. Me, I tend to get a more…impressionistic view of a game – the ebbs and flows of momentum, of patterns, so to speak. About the only real details I’ll see are those which are totally but seemingly insignificant to the contest at the time. It’s not until I watch the Replay that I see all that other stuff. It’s like the original viewing paints the backdrop and notes where a lot of that little stuff will go, but it’s the second viewing which actually etches-in all those details, all the real stuff which tends to go down in the papers. So, with great anticipation I finally caught the Replay of Collingwood-Brisbane. Surprisingly, I actually felt nervous before it started. I think I was worried that I might see something which could prove our win a fluke. Since we defeated Brisbane, a number of opposition supporters have downplayed the victory, so I wondered whether we were overlooking something with biased eyes. Nope. It’s all there. About our only fortune from the game was Michael Voss being knocked-out early. Whether that depreciated his on-field performance for the rest of the night is anybody’s guess. At any rate, young Smeagol McGoughy held him well. It was actually when McGough went off with injury that Voss really started to get amongst the damaging possessions. As for the rest – injuries, unfit players, inaccuracy, etc. – well, that’s all irrelevant. In those areas, we not only match the Lions, but also out-perform them. 3.8 in the Second Quarter? How’s that for inaccuracy? Fraser, Davis, O’Bree, Lonie, Molloy, Cummings – how’s that for underdone players compared to their duo of Daryl White and Jonathon Brown? That pretty much leaves only travel as a mitigating factor. At home this season the Lions are 4-0 and averaging 10 goal drubbings. In a way, it’s almost obligatory for anybody who goes down there. On the road this year they’re 2-2. Suddenly, unbelievably, farcically, some are questioning whether they’re susceptible on the road. Somehow this speculation is oblivious of the fact the Lions won some 20 games straight through last year to this one. There were some games on the road there, weren’t there? Moreover, the Colonic provides a safe and sterile environment for interstaters. The closed roof takes away any adverse Victorian conditions, excluding the support of the crowd. Even Leigh Matthews called it an home-away-from-home for Brisbane. Finally, while we’ve played three in a row there, the Colonic’s as foreign to us as it is to any of its visitors. The win was there. It’s ours. There was nothing mitigating about it. There was nothing about the game which was more advantageous to Collingwood than it was to Brisbane. If anything, and as I wrote yesterday, that we decided to shut down so early in the Final Quarter gave Brisbane the leeway to find their way back into it. That leaves me with three things to get off my chest. I’ll try to be short, but (you know) I won’t be. If you ever catch any of those Infomercials very early morning you might see Kevin Trudeau selling something called Mega Memory. This product purportedly allows you to develop a photographic memory and instant-recall. However, I’d like to propose a new product called Nil Memory. What am I talking about? Rupert Betheras. I’ve ranted previously about Collingwood’s much-maligned players – the Unheralded. Rupe, Shane Wakelin, Simon Prestigiacomo, Mark Richardson, Steve McKee, are all part of this group. But I’m only interested in putting the microscope on Rupe for the moment. Rupe’s been a favorite of TCR since we opened way back in 1999 – and particularly a favorite of mine, the Chief, and Tazz. I don’t know what it was exactly – and I can’t speak for the other two – but there was something appealing about the kid with the funny name. Apparently, he went surfing in his formative 20-something years to get all that screwing-around out of his system before pursuing a career in football. At the jumper presentation, he allegedly thrust his guernsey into the air and shouted, “Go Pies!” As a midfielder in 1999 he was second only to Nathan Buckley for possessions. But instead of continuing there in 2000-01, Mick Malthouse used him as a stopgap defender where he was often horribly exposed. Malthouse has done this with a number of players – Nick Davis, Tyson Lane, Glenn Freeborn, Heath Scotland, Rhyce Shaw, and so on. Williamstown is full of young Collingwood guys serving apprenticeships in defense. This seems to be part of a Malthouse Learning Curve to impact defensive grounding into these players. It’s not something I’ve always agreed with. For example, Heath Scotland played virtually all of 2001 in Williamstown to get this education when he might’ve served us far better in the Seniors. However, I recall after beating the Kangaroos at Manuka, Malthouse commented he liked the look of Scotland’s game far more than he had in Round #1. Some players, though, have seemed totally unsuited to it. I recall Tyson Lane shirking a number of physical encounters in defense; at the time I screamed and raved at Lane along with everybody else. But when I’d had a chance to cool down, I reflected it wasn’t entirely Lane’s fault. That’s the sort of player he was. As the saying I’m just making-up here on the spot goes: A jib cannot be untrue to his nature. That pretty much says it all in such a case. But that’s neither here nor there with Rupe, because he was always hard at it and in the packs. When he failed it wasn’t for lack of effort or a willingness to put his body on the line. It was simply because he didn’t have the required tools for the job. It’d be like putting Leon Davis or Glenn Freeborn in the ruck. Sure, they’ll try for you, and they’ll learn about ruck-work in the process, but overall they don’t have the tools to pull-off the job. I guess the important thing for these players is whether they get the education Mick Malthouse is trying to provide them. Certainly guys like Nick Davis and Heath Scotland appear better for having paid their defensive-dues. The same might be said of Rupe this year. On the other side of the coin, a guy like Glenn Freeborn should probably be appreciated a little more for continuing to fill a roll presumably very alien to him. But Rupe was horribly curtailed by most of his time in defense. Moreover, clangers are emphasized in the defensive arc as the opposition will usually make you pay for any turnover with a score. However, while Rupe has been guilty of the occasional error of disposal, I don’t categorize him as one of the Clanger Kings, Merchant Prince of Turnovers. I believe those errors he's committed (in the past) have been exacerbated by his time in defense and earned him an unwarranted reputation. Rupe’s had a lot more leeway this year. By his own admission he fell away a bit last year, but has worked hard to get back to the top echelon this season. And with that, he’s also been returned to positions more accommodating to his nature – Half-Forward, Wing, and even the occasional stint in the midfield. That’s what I saw definitively on the Replay – Rupe in the Center on several occasions. And there he was, fighting for the ball, in-and-under packs, feeding the ball out – and usually quite coolly. In the first quarter, there was one occasion where he took an handball from Scotty Burns on deep-half-back, turned, and speared a pinpoint-perfect pass to Anthony Rocca on the Wing. Rocca marked and kicked to Tarrant, who also marked, and subsequently goaled. This is the sort of game this Rupe’s got to play: creative - creating, as opposed to negating. The goal he kicked to put us in front was also a creative effort – spoiling, taking the crumbs, and hammering the ball home. Hell, considering he spoiled and stole the ball, maybe all that time in his defense has helped round him out. At any rate, I’ve been a fervent advocate of getting Rupe back into a midfield role – particularly in 2000 when we had lesser-qualified candidates, such as Andrew Dimattina and Mark Orchard, roaming around in there. I recall Tazz posted on a Collingwood Board during one of our trying mid-seasons that Rupe should be put in the center, and the suggestion was derided by a poster. It hasn’t been easy for Collingwood’s less-accomplished, less-recognized players in recent years. Sure, The Blitzkrieig Blond, Nathan Buckley, will star despite the Team around him, but others will suffer when the support’s not there. Last year, the defensive combination of Elvis, Richo, and Wakelin, earned the disdain of many, but under the frequency with which the ball began to go there even a Premiership-defense would’ve buckled. Similarly with a classier player such as Shane O’Bree; in the last couple of the years when the opposition's midfield negation has focused solely on him and Bucks, he's also quietened. There seems to be a line which, once players cross, their errors and lesser performances become forgivable, and forgotten. If Buckley kicks a clanger, (and statistically he averages a few), who remembers? If it’s Steve McKee, people lament the deal which brought him to Collingwood for the umpteenth time and call for his head. I’m not taking a shot at Buckley there, but the inequity of the different standards. If there’s forgiveness for one, there should be for all, exempting the players who’re wholly unfit for Senior-level. God knows we’ve had quite a few of them for us in the last ten years. Rupe’s been great for us this year, as have many of our unheralded players – Wakelin, Elvis (when he’s had the opportunity), McKee, Steinfort, and so on. I look at the Team and find it hard to make changes – it’s no longer filled with deadwood cluttering-up spots. You look at the guys to come in – such as Leon Davis, Alan Didak, Heath Scotland, Mark Richardson, and even Damien Adkins and possibly Richard Cole – and there’s just no longer any career-mannequins filling spaces and, more significantly, filling time. In 1990, 1991, and 1992, I recall that whenever a gun-player was out, Leigh Matthews would bring-in a career road-hump, like Brendan Tranter, Troy Hecker, Darren Saunders, or Jason Croall. I used to argue that these guys always invariably found their way back into the Team because they could just as easily find their way back out. There’d be no uproar when you dropped one of them to bring back a Gavin Brown or Darren Millane. But in today’s Collingwood there’s just none of these silly-putty fillers presently in the Seniors. Well, I think Rupe’s earned the respite and the Nil Memory of the Collingwood Faithful - that being the way most supporters will forget a respective player's poor performances and any deficiencies he might have when he comes good. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions; in fact, I grew-up surrounded by people who'd make those seesawing calls, which is why - I think - I try to be relatively objective, as well as something of a champion for the underdog. This call for Rupe doesn’t come-off the three goal effort against Brisbane, but is born from his four year career for Collingwood. Obviously, I’m a bit biased; as I’ve said, he’s been a long-time favorite of TCR’s, and any long-time readers might recall how vehemently I used to call for his inclusion into the midfield in 2000. But now, I believe he’s paid his dues, and deserves the leeway afforded to some of our more recognized players. Onto my second point, which is the Team itself. I mentioned earlier that it’s very difficult to displace any fit players for those returning from injury this week. Should Leon Davis return this week, he’ll take the position of the injured Smeagol McGoughy, so in a morbid sort of way we’re fortunate we don’t have to force somebody out. However, what about when McGough’s fit and able? And Mark Richardson, who you’d consider a Senior walk-in (fitness pending), should be available soon, so who’ll make way there? Will anybody? Rintoul’s another case. If he returns from his migraine-problems, he might be considered another regular, so who makes way? Here’s the Team as I see it, placing the players in rudimentary positions. So this isn't my Team - I'm just squashing everybody in for the sake of convenience. Here goes:
Saying that, I’d like to see Collingwood take Josh out of tall positions and begin to play him in running-ones. Wing would be perfect for him; he’s has the ability to play as a runner, but if it ever comes to an one-on-one marking contest does any other Club have the tall wingman to match him? Also, for two years we’ve been playing him in positions which require extreme physicality, such as the Ruck and CHF. So it might be worthwhile to take that focus off him and let him play as more as a runner and link-man. Obviously, there’ll remain occasions where he’ll have to pinch-hit in the ruck or at throw-ins, but at least the onus for these contests won’t lay solely on him. Overall, as far as the Team-structure goes, I’d like to see some sort of triangular rotation set-up rotating players through the center, other Wing, and onto the Half-forward line. I think Nick Davis is being underused solely as a Forward. It’d be good to see him get stints in the center and on the Wing. The outgoing centerman would go to the Wing, and the Wing to Half-forward. Otherwise, I only listed the Team to illustrate that we’re starting to get a bit of depth happening, which hasn’t occurred for years. (Unless you count the depth under Tony Shaw in which we replaced one dud with another). Up until my last line of players, everybody listed under the Interchange-section is capable of Senior Football. The last line – Richard Cole, Guy Richards, Andrew Dimattina, and Ben Kinnear – are all at different levels. I know that somewhere in that head of his, Ben Kinnear has the capacity to play at the highest level. He’s showed it before. The problem is actually getting him to do it throughout a whole season, instead of just at the end of one. Dimattina’s solely a defensive option, a back-up to Steinfort, while Cole and Richards are expected to eventually graduate to the highest level. Cole, our highest Draft-pick, actually played briefly in Round #1, and the reports on the kid are that’ll he be something, (unless the Number 13 curse – a number he specifically requested – flattens him), so who knows when he might come in. It could be sooner rather than later. There’s mixed reports on Guy Richards’s progress; I’ve heard he’s a fantastic tap-ruckman, but is having occasional trouble showing it at Williamstown. He played during the Wizard Cup and looked sporadically okay, but the question-mark on him was that he’d always be a two year project due to his thinness. The other thing I wanted to illustrate with this Team is that only fourteen of the 33 players listed came from the respective regimes of Matthews/Shaw. Of those, only Buckley, Burns, Richardson, Rocca, Licuria, and Freeborn, could be considered Senior stalwarts. The rest are part of the youth process Tony Shaw finally begun in 1999. It’s been quite a rebuilding process, which brings me to my third and final point. People are still speculating about whether we’re The Real Thing. They’ve gone through our wins this year and depreciated them. It’s really starting to drive me nuts. Looking at our wins:
* West Coast - In the end, you beat what’s there and we’ve done that. We’ve come up against challenges and we’ve surmounted them. Nobody rated us a chance against Essendon – we won. Against the Western Bulldogs opinion remained divided and still half the tippers tipped against us – we won, despite playing very poorly. Against Brisbane, people were talking about how the loss would evaluate us – we won. I’m not going to get ahead of myself. I’ve done that before. I said it yesterday: Keep going. Keep doing it. Keep winning. And I’m not going to clear my September calendar, but that’s only because I don’t have one. I remain guardedly optimistic because I’ve been burned before. But, hell, give the Club its dues – they deserve it. Port Adelaide this week looms as our newest, best challenge. Suddenly, going there is a bigger test than facing Brisbane. Sure, it’s in Adelaide, and playing Brisbane was here in Victoria, but as far as I recall playing Brisbane anywhere was a monstrous challenge. Also, we went to Adelaide twice last year and beat both Port and Adelaide – what’d that prove? I get the feeling when we beat Port this Friday night, these same critics will be out saying, ”Yeah, but they did that last year, too.” Well, to hell with the doubters. It’s become evident we’re capable. Some suspect we might fall into a bad patch, as Richmond have done pretty much on every occasion for the last two decades, or as Hawthorn did last year. I’d like to think we’ve gone through Slump City on so many occasions that we’re totally adverse to taking another trip, that Mick Malthouse is far more experienced than Peter Schwab, Danny Frawley, or any of the plethora of coaches who’ve occupied the hot-seat at Richmond, and should he see we’re approaching that route, that as long as we’re physically capable he’ll be able to steer us away from it. I wrote about that in 2000, labeling that horror-patch through our mid-season Mr. Slumpy, and speculated that Malthouse should have the experience and coaching-arsenal to avoid repeat-journeys. To break it down into its simplest form, in 2000 we were 5-6 at Round 11; we ended the season on 7-15. So we only won 2 for the second half of the Season. In 2001, we were 6-5 at Round 11; we finished the season 11-11. So we won 5 in the latter-half of the season. I think that proves that as the players have become more physically and mentally capable, they’ve started to iron that inconsistency out of the Club. Granted, in the second half of last season we were often unconvincing and occasionally hammered, but at least we managed to notch-up several wins here and there, and that’s all you can do. Last year, Buckley’s Surfers and TCR jointly ran the byline Collingwood 2001: The Odyssey. This year, the Surfers are running Collingwood 2002: It’s Our Time. As for me, I’ve been trying to think of something nifty all year. But until last night, I had no idea. So, in closing this overlong rant I’ll leave you with what came to me late last night.
|
|
May 16th. Problem Children. I’m starting to get frustrated with some players. And I’m not talking about the likes of Andrew Dimattina, Ben Kinnear, and their increasingly shortening company at Collingwood. I know what they’re capable of. I know what they’re going to give me and the Team-effort when they’re selected. If there are subsequently any positives, then it’s a pleasant surprise. The guys I’m talking about are those who have more talent in their little finger than all your Kinnears and Dimattinas put together. And when I say this, two and an half guys immediately come to mind. The first is Josh Fraser. Now I appreciate that he’s savagely underdone courtesy of his bout with Osteitis Pubis, but it’s time this kid started producing much more than he has. Going into the 2000 Draft, this kid was described as an once in a generation player far, far better than Wayne Carey was at the same age. But when you look at the fact that a lot of the guys from the same Draft have superceded him, you have to really begin to wonder, despite some extenuating circumstances. Hampering him immediately was his build. Josh has always been lightly framed. You can see that all the proper dieting and weight-training will only take him so far. He’ll never be broad and muscled like Anthony Rocca, and trying to fatten him up won’t produce a solid build like Scotty Cummings; in fact, I think it’d just go straight to his belly. (It's gone straight to everywhere with Scotty). Then there’s the rucking. In 2000 he rucked tirelessly. Running him that hard, instead of having the luxury to ease him in wouldn’t have helped his development. If anything, I wouldn’t be surprised whther this regiment contributed to his bout of Osteitis Pubis. Then again, his actual rucking-ability at bounces has remained dubious, at best. His overhead marking has always just been moderate. Obviously, his lack of physical bulk has seen him bustled too easily out of position; but that shouldn’t stop him leaping over everybody. Pleasingly, he pulled down a few contested marks against the Doggies. His set-kicking at goal is also questionable; it may be unfair to judge him on this aspect when so many others at Collingwood are just as average, but when you see Josh’s conversion while on the run, whether he’s stabbing them through or kicking them banana-style, you have to wonder why his set-kicking isn’t better. However, that does tend to show he's more a running-player than a set one, i.e., as in one designed to stand and deliver. Obviously, we have different standards for different players. We don’t expect the same from Stunning Steve McKee that we might from Josh Fraser, anymore than we’d expect the same from Carl Steinfort that we’d expect from Nathan Buckley. But Josh is regarded as such a talent, and occasionally fleetingly shows that potential, that it’s exasperating not to see him improve exponentially. Where I believe he’s largely unparalleled is his awareness of where teammates and opposition are on the field. I recall against Geelong in 2000 Josh dived and slid on the loose ball while surrounded by opposition, took a moment’s pause, then hammered out a fifteen meter handball to a teammate, who’d previously been unsighted. Most players in Josh’s position would’ve been content to lock the ball up, or just thump it toward the boundary-line. Tellingly, all the best players in the League have this sort of awareness. Seemingly random kicks out of packs, or into congestion, unerringly find a target. To date, I think this has been the best feature of Josh’s game. But you can’t thrive on awareness. While it may hold you in good stead on the field, much more is required to dominate a game at the highest level. The second player I have in mind is Chris Tarrant. This kid’s even more frustrating. To have the talent he has, but to produce sporadically as he does, often has you reaching to tear your hair out. On Sunday, a few times I was ready to jump onto the field and give him one of those forehands across the back of the head that parents reserve for disobedient children, (regardless of whether they’re their children or not!). I’ve often been critical of Chris Tarrant seemingly preferring to play pretty and failing spectacularly, rather than playing ugly and succeeding. And believe me, as a guy who’s followed the West Indies in the Cricket for many, many years, I’ve come to be an expert on this sort of schizoid productivity and unaccountability. For instance, you won’t often see Tarrant take two-three-four-grab marks because he commits everything to the first grab. Nice in principle, but I feel it’s a play accommodated almost solely for style. Going back to that Geelong game in 2000, when the Cats hit the front Tarrant stopped leading. Instead, in wet conditions, he stood there waving he ball-carrier in for a long kick, hoping to take the big mark. It was pure folly. Similarly when the ball comes to ground. He doesn’t want to do the ugly things to win it. He’d rather try a Daicos’esque sidestep out of the back. The real fault here is he’s spending the ball even before he’s won the damn thing. The issue with Tarrant is a mental one, because I’ve seen him do these things…on occasion. But when he’s not in the groove of the game, he’s content to meander along, waiting for something to happen instead of making it happen. Too often on Sunday he was content to let opposition run off him, or passed him, without any real pressure. Exacerbating the problem is that he’s not really a Full-forward. It’s a role he can play because he can lead and he can take the big mark, and he’s a reliable kick. But you’ll never get the huge bag out of him because when the play’s not around, his mind has the proclivity to wonder. Also, the more he’s out of the game, the less you’ll see him attempt those one-percenters. Many people credited Scotty Cummings for his game against the Bombers on ANZAC Day. He may’ve only statistically got one handball, but he was constantly chasing, diving in packs, knocking-the-ball on, etc. But this isn’t something Tarrant will consistently offer. Tarrant’s probably much better suited to a Half-forward flank where he can use the space to his advantage and he’ll always be in proximity of play, keeping his mind focused. Also, as a flanker he’ll be able to feed-off the alleviation of pressure from having the likes of Anthony Rocca, Jarrod Molloy, and Nick Davis by his side. I don’t think being the sole focal point really suits him, or that he really enjoys that sort of scrutiny and responsibility. Foremost, he has to realize that playing ugly is just as effective as taking the big mark. It’s a matter of playing the percentages and continually applying yourself. Look at Matthew Lloyd; 80 per cent of his goals would come from simple leading and conversion. But are you going to scoff at 80 goals per year? Both Josh and Tarrant are prodigious talents. Ironically, they have opposing strengths and weaknesses, so they could probably learn from one another. But before they do that they should look to Anthony Rocca and emulate the characteristics which have really lifted his game in the last two years. The reason I believe Anthony’s really come up is because he’s realized what he’s capable of and enjoys hurting opposition with it. He knows he’s big, muscular, has a long reach, and he’s now putting it to use. This is the reason I think Saverio never really consistently reached his fullest potential – he didn’t have confidence in his assets; he was big but rarely used his body, he was strong but too often allowed himself to be meekly pushed aside, etc. He never grew comfortable with what he could do. The highest level is one I believe Josh will reach. You can see it in the way he pushes himself, the way he feels every disappointment throughout a game, and just his general composure. However, it won’t be as a ruckman. That’s simply not his position. Ultimately, I wouldn’t mind see him serving a stint at Center-Half Back and playing with the leeway to run off his opponent. If nothing else, it might help to round-out his game. And, of course, unless they start afire big men really seem to take their time in developing and reaching their potential. Anthony Rocca’s taken awhile, (although in fairness to Anthony, he started most Seasons injured; also, he played several years under Tony unShaw, and that would’ve set him back a decade in development). Even Stunning Steve McKee’s taken a couple of years to become the regular contributor he now is. Tarrant, on the other hand, has the disturbing tendency to be a head-dropper. Look, I don’t care how disappointed or pissed he might get, but he should never show it in that fashion. The guy I consider to be the premier head-dropper in the League is Matthew Richardson, and Tarrant is frighteningly following the same path of development presently. Drop your head, adopt that slumped, resigned posture, and you feel defeated. Keep your head up, shoulders broad and unbowed like Superman, and regardless of the disappointment you’ll brush it off and be ready to confront and conquer the next challenge. As the saying goes: Form is function. And for those who don’t understand that philosophy, the form an individual adopts will dictate his outlook and actions. Act and behave defeated, and you will be. The final “half player” I wanted to mention was Damien Adkins. The opinion on this kid is divided; I thought he showed enough in his first year of Senior Football (in 2000) to suggest he could become a consistently exciting player and a valuable cog in our midfield. But after losing the former half of last year to Osteitis Pubis and the latter half to lack of fitness, he really seems to be struggling to find his bearings. His performances for Williamstown have been erratic, and I recall reading that after one bright opening quarter, he was blasted by Coach Brad Gotch, and subsequently faded out of the game. That leads me to believe he was doing his own thing. A variety of guys have gone through learning curves (and continue to do so) under Mick Malthouse. In Malthouse’s first year, Nick Davis played at Half-back. Heath Scotland had a manner of defensive positions for Williamstown last year and couldn’t crack his way into the Seniors for much of the season. The same happened with McKee and Rhyce Shaw in 2000 and 2001. Etc. However, I’d like to think Collingwood has some plan in mind and hopes for the future for Adkins, otherwise they wouldn’t have given him the Number 2. Sure, Leon Davis is Number 1 and it may just be a form of symmetry to have another small man take the number after that, but I tend to believe Adkins was given the Number 2 to follow and succeed our last decent rover, Tony Francis. (Similarly, I feel that’s why Heath Scotland got Scotty Russell’s 29. I get the feeling Eddie was up all night correlating who should be what number when most of the players were downgraded for 2001). Unfortunately, BigTone from Buckley’s Surfers told me of a rumor that if Damien Adkins doesn’t break his way back into Senior Football this year, he’s going to give up the gig entirely. To Damien Adkins, I have three words of advice: GET OVER IT. The game’s done nobody any favors, and obviously having yahoos like me constantly slam-dunking criticism doesn’t make things any easier. But good players are the ones who survive adversity of all kinds, verbal, physical, written, et al, etc. Look at Corey McKernan as an example of somebody who’s still trying. He might be playing awfully, but at least he’s still in there giving it everything he can. Considering age, injuries, and expectation, are all against him, the effort becomes all the more admirable. So should this rant ever get to Damien Adkins, the only one in charge of your fortunes is yourself. If you want to make it, then do it. But don’t have the fatality-all or nothing complex, because you’ve proven once you can play with the Big Boys, and having done that I’m sure you can do it again. Finally, I’d like to take yet another swipe at the VFL Competition. The standard of this Competition is appalling, and that’s on good days. It no longer provides the staging ground to cultivate quality players. Great players who’re playing in the VFL to find touch or fitness just murder the standard, and it hardly helps to get themselves back in tune. Decent players are often obscured by the shoddiness of the Competition. Then there’s the likes of your Andrew Dimattinas who’ll constantly excel in it, but be found out at the AFL Level. Now I’m beginning to wonder if there’s not another tier of players who might be great in the AFL standard, but never get the chance to showcase their wares because they’re lost in the oblivion of the VFL. I imagine some players need the better opposition, the quicker pace, the tougher pressure to find the mental niche where they can begin to fire. That mightn’t be the best way to approach Football, but the game takes all kinds, and I get the feeling we’re going to lose those characteristics and start seeing, more than ever, drones. It’s something to think about. Later.
|
|
May 9th. The Wild Colonial Run. Stand back! 4-2 start! [Cue the Mission Impossible Music] We haven't had one of those since 2000 when we were 5-1...and 1998 when we were 4-2...as well as 1997...and 1996… Shudder. For the record, let's look back at the last 9 years:
Of course, in the here and now that's irrelevant. We have a tendency to start well and finish decently (when the pressure's off), but have an appalling run in the middle. People have argued it's because conditions become wetter and slipperier and we don't have the skills to handle it. I don't buy that. If that were truly the case you'd imagine that somewhere along the line we'd fluke a win. But that hasn't happened. Also, in 2000, due to the Olympics the Season started about a month earlier, and yet we followed the same pattern. I can understand the bright starts. Beginning the Season we're usually fit, enthusiastic, and motoring along. Most other Clubs don't ease into the groove until about Round 5 or Round 6, by which time we've incurred some niggles and our enthusiasm's on the wane. Consequently, we're surpassed. In the case of Tony Shaw's tenure where we had 4-2 starts in 3 of the four years he was in charge, compounding the problem is that we were worked out and Shaw didn't have the coaching arsenal to work his way through it. Similarly under Matthews, although here replace "arsenal" with flexibility. And under Malthouse? In 2000 the conditioning of our youngsters fell away en masse. Atop of that were fitness and form concerns with our few experienced Senior players at the time. From memory, Buckley carried a groin complaint, Burns an ankle injury, and Paul Williams simply burned himself out in that delightful Paul Williams-way of his. In 2001 we had a partial fall-away, but this usually resulted following a big win - as I ranted yesterday at TAFLR. To briefly recap, we lost to the Kangaroos after beating Carlton, narrowly beat St. Kilda and then lost to the Swans after bravely defeating Port Adelaide at Football Park, and, finally, lost to Geelong after beating Adelaide at Football Park. These are three matches we should've won. But if we went 8-8 from hereon, as we did last year, that'd probably be enough to creep into the Finals. Of course, we want more than that. Well, I do. Let's look forward at what I consider…
Or is it? Okay, there's two arguments here - the positive, and the negative:
It's a tough little couple of months accentuated not by the Teams, but by where we play them. I'd be a lot more confident facing most of these Teams at the MCG. In fact, if we can draw 46 thousand to the Colonic against the Saints, what's the likelihood games against the Doggies, Lions, Roos, and Swans will be sellouts? Particularly if they're firing right alongside us? I think it's time for some collective Collingwood bullying to get a few of these games relocated to the MCG. It's imperative, I believe, that we come away from this batch of games with - at a very minimum - a 50 per cent strike rate. However, we also want more than that. Well, I do. This - 2002 - is more than a bright start. This List is far more accomplished than the rag-tag band of misfits and rejects Tony Shaw carried to a similar position, or the overtrained, overburdened, underskilled stars Leigh Matthews drove into the ground to get to a similar position. Moreover, in charge there's actually an experienced coach. (Matthews might be experienced now, but wasn't back then). But that's not enough. Anybody can offer potential, anybody can promise hope. Hell, Richmond's made a career out of it. It's time Collingwood reached into the deep, dark recesses of their collective soul and found the resolution and determination to take a stand and make this happen. Last year we overcame our June hoodoo, winning 3 from 4 games in that month. But we've got to go further this year. It's not about "the next step." That's too easy and too simplistic a classification. This comes down to moral courage and inner conviction. This Club's fallen over so often that it's become a joke to opposition supporters. It's no secret we don't maintain the same stature in their eyes. But a trepidation is creeping into their outlook this year. Already, you can hear the yahoos making guarded comments about Collingwood being a potential Finalist - "You'll make it, but won't do anything there", I heard just very recently. Well, it's time we took all that derision, all that ridicule, all that negativity, rolled it up into a damn ball, and responded by dropped-kicking it the hell out of the Club and into the stratosphere. The embarrassing loss to Carlton three weeks ago should be the last embarrassment this generation of the Club has to endure. I've said it before, and I'll say it once more with feeling: it's time this Club stood up, looked adversity in the face, and made their imprint on the League forever-more. Because honorable-losses, being close, almost getting there, and all that, simply aren't enough. It's time we stepped up. Simply, it's time.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 2nd. Rain Washes Away Filth. From memory, Thursday's game was the first time it had rained on a Collingwood-Essendon ANZAC Day match since the occasion's inception. The last two were warm, bordering on too bloody sunny and hot. A few before had been overcast; but this was the first time it rained throughout. The ANZAC Day record now stands at 4-3-1 in our favor. I give that because there've been yahoos who think Essendon have eclipsed us in this particularly contest. Nope. A tie in 95, we won from 96-to-98, and then Essendon won the next 3. For the nostalgia of it, here are the final scores from my scrapbooks:
1995:
1996:
1997:
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002: Since our rebirth in 2000, (as that's what it is when you begin from scratch), the ANZAC Day game has been the best measuring stick for our development. In 1999, they beat us for the first time - a sure indicator that we'd hit rock-bottom. In 2000, we pushed the Bombers for much of the match before they proved too strong and pulled away by 40 points. James Hird was announced the ANZAC Day Medallist. In honor of the occasion, God declared every turd flushed would bear a resemblance to Jimmy. 2001 offered a much tougher match throughout, and we even staged a late revival before being held-off to the tune of 8 points. Chris Tarrant was anointed the ANZAC Day Medallist. In the papers the following day, Sheedy declared (of us), "They're coming!" Of course, I don't put much stock in what Sheedy says when he's using us to deflect attention from his own Team. This year, we won. It shows the journey we've been on; Essendon's been the benchmark of the competition for the last 3-4 years, despite their lack of Premiership success. They achieved their first ANZAC Day win against us in our Wooden Spoon Year, in 1999. In 2000, they accounted for us with relative ease. Last year, we pulled close. This year, we overhauled them. Each passing year has showcased the improvement in ourselves. I (and many of the rantists) were pretty confident going into the game. Well, regardless of what Doska tries to tell you, the Chief and I always expect to win (and win comfortably), even when we're seemingly down and out. Even the Chris Tarrant suspension, I thought, would serve as a positive for the Team. Tarrant blitzed against Hawthorn and I thought the danger might exist that the Team would come to rely on him to kick the bulk of goals against Essendon. It's similar to the way Collingwood have relied on Buckley in the years gone by. Without Taz, and with Scotty Cummings still something of an unknown quantity, everybody would have to take another step up. Of course, it's not a practice you want to put into theory regularly. The rain was another problem entirely. A fortnight ago against Carlton, the rain accentuated our skill deficiencies and emphasized our poor decision-making. Would the same occur on ANZAC Day? As for Essendon, I recalled two years ago they hammered Brisbane by 10 goals at the GABBA during a torrential downpour. Many said Essendon simply played as if it were dry - their skills were that good. On this occasion, many have said that the rain caused Essendon to be indirect and over-possess. They had 31 more possessions than us, (most of them handballs). After the game Malthouse himself said that the conditions might serve others reason to depreciate our win, which has seemed to be the case in non-Collingwood circles. I don't believe it; despite a tenure in the sterile environment of the Colonic, Essendon have proved themselves good enough to handle any adverse conditions. They've done it before repeatedly, so why was Thursday any different? The answer is simple: it wasn't. In actual fact, I believe the rain did something entirely different, altogether. It washed away our superfluous tendencies, it cleansed away our unnecessary possessions and left us with a much purer, straighter form of game. This is why Essendon looked like they were being indirect and over-possessing - because that's the way it appeared in contrast to us. They had more possessions, but not because they needed more, but because we used less. That's how simple that statistic is. For the record, in 2000 it was 295 possessions (us) to 364 possession (Essendon). In 2001, it was 292 (us) to 269 (Essendon). This year it was 266 (Collingwood) to 297 (Essendon). And what's all that prove? Well, Essendon will use as many or as little possessions as required. They've been that good and adaptive, and the simple truth is when it works nobody questions it. But as for Collingwood, we generally average high 200's - until this match when the rain washed away all that nonessential crap. I really hope Malthouse and his Staff of Coaches take note, because when you make the benchmark of the competition look indirect and over-possessive, then obviously you're doing something right. However, it's something right we should continue to do regardless of the conditions, because if we go back to Mr.Chippy-Chippy this week in the climate-controlled environment of the Colonic, I swear, I'll go on a rampage. The other two players who've been pivotal to our resurgence in the last fortnight have been Mark McGough and Chris Tarrant/Scott Cummings. Yeah, I know that's three players, but I list the latter two as an effective Full-forward. While Cummings only had one handball and a couple of knock-ons against Essendon, like Tarrant against Hawthorn, he straightened us up with his direct leading right down the guts of the ground. He, like Tarrant the week before, compelled us to go straight, instead of chipping to showcase every bit of advertising on the fence in the pockets. Cummings also did well to remove Dustin Fletcher from the game. I couldn't believe Sheedy persisted with the match-up. Missing Wellman and Solomon, Essendon had nobody to rebound from defense. Fletcher would've been the ideal replacement at CHB, particularly considering the conditions. But leaving him at Full-back, Cummings continued to lead him to the contests and out of the game. Working out a system to accommodate both Cummings and Tarrant is going to be pivotal for Collingwood. Cummings is the much better traditional Full-forward and has the bulk (boy, does he have the bulk!) to split packs. Also, Cummings has the better second ground-effort. Too often, it seems Taz considers that sort of play too unattractive for his repertoire; as he's young he has time to work on it. The other guy who's added bite is McGough. This kid, who bears a passing resemblance to Gollum/Smeagol from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, is ubiquitous in his attack on the ball. And for a 17 year old, young McGoughy already has great physical development. Finally, we've picked up a youth who isn't a bag of bones. Collingwood will have to be careful to nurture him through the season so his endurance doesn't fall away drastically, as it did, you might recall, with Nick Davis in 1999. However, with the likes of Leon Davis, Nick Davis, Brodie Holland, and Heath Scotland coming up, (the latter two were actually very good in the second quarter against Essendon, and Leon's been good the whole year), Shane O'Bree to return, Carl Steinfort to be assigned tagging-duties, and the ever-reliable Bucks, it'd be just about impossible to not work out a rotation to accommodate them all and nurture them throughout the season. This week we have the Saints at the Colonic, which hasn't been our happiest hunting ground. Pre-Season Competition aside, I think we're only running at about a 50 per cent success rate at the AFL's Gates of Hell. On Saturday night, the Saints and Swans played a game which looked (and had a final score) much like Rugby Union. The Saints instigated numerous floods and not to be outdone, Rodney Eade decided that every loose Saint needed to be manned-up. In the end, it was lucky the roof was closed because otherwise, the fans would've tried climbing out of the Stadium in protest. (I believe they tried using the conventional gates, but found them congested with Saints' defenders and Sydney's forwards). This is the best time for Collingwood to prove they have the mettle to defeat any sort of flooding. Between the likes of Anthony "Hollywood" Rocca and Scotty "Hurricane" Cummings, we have the height and bulk to out-mark and bully an undersized Saints' defense. Against the Swans, the Saints double and triple-teamed Barry Hall out of the game, but in our case we have two guys just as big, bad, and bustling. The medley of Buckley, Burns, Nick Davis, Ryan Lonie, and James Clement have the capacity to kick over it. And Holland and Leon Davis can crumb through it. But we can't fall into old habits of footballing pontification. Get the damn ball and move it. Later.
|
|
April 25th. The Unheralded.
Am I not stunning enough Is my ruckwork too faulty Do I try too much Is my leap all broken
Don’t I make you laugh
I run, I leap, the bounce has gone passed me
Am I not stunning enough
Don’t I make you laugh
I laugh, I feel, I’ve just made a meal,
Am I not stunning enough
Don’t I make you laugh
Why do you see
Why do you see
Why do you see
Why do you see
~ Silence. Stunning just looks at me. It’s scary. The FANS surrounding us wait with baited breath. Out of the corner of my eye, I notice it’s not just Collingwood fans – there’s Hawthorn ones in there, too. Stunning appeals to everybody, I think. I look back to him. He’s still glowering. I’m getting uneasy, and I feel I need to break the silence. ~
SLY: “And, of course, we haven’t defeated Essendon since ANZAC Day, 1998.” ~ The fans LAUGH with whimsical delight, (the buffoons). ~
STUNNING (cont'd): “Because, you see, it doesn’t matter who Essendon put in there against me.” Sorry, but some times I like to amuse myself, although I don’t really like that chant in the WWF. In fact, I find it damn annoying. But it could be put to great use in regards to Stunning Steve McKee. I’m very disappointed, though, I was the only one trying to start it up on Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately, it was to no effect. Football’s had players who garner an accompaniment from the crowd – Val Perovic, Paul Roos, and even today, Adam Yze. Just as an aside but how can you get a polite as hell Melbourne crowd, the most vicious thing they ever scream being, ”Go Dees!” start up such a chant for Yze, and I can’t get my ”What!?” happening for Stunning Steve McKee? You don’t have to like Wrestling/Sports-Entertainment. Actually, it’s all right if you downright hate it, if you never want to see it – even by accident. But Stunning Steve McKee deserves the chant. So I implore you whenever he gets near the ball to chant, ”What!? What!? What!?” Yes, that’s right – shout it three times. And if there’s enough support behind the cheer, eventually it’ll catch on. Like the Mexican wave, it doesn’t matter where it’s started but other people will pick it up – barring those 112 year old MCC Members who tend to remain catatonic throughout anything exciting at the MCG. (I’ve never been there – are they actual people? Or are some plastic ones wheeled out for each MCG event?). So start the chant as soon as Thursday! And the reason I’ve spent so much time on Stunning Steve McKee is because he just happens to be one of The Unheralded. Originally, this rant was called “The Much-Maligned.” But I changed it for a very simple reason – Collingwood’s been responsible for enough crappy terminology which has crept into football vernacular. For example, you often hear about “Team Balance”, and I’m sure Leigh Matthews started that – or at the very least, popularized it – when he left out Ronnie McKeown for the 1990 Grand Final. In following years, others would pick-up on it, (notably Kevin Sheedy by omitting Derek Kickett for the 1993 Grand Final), but it’s origins lay with Leigh Matthews. And at the other end of the decade, in 1999 Tony Shaw brought “having a dip” into the mainstream. When I’d call for his immediate sacking, The Couch Potato would argue there was no point destabilizing the Club and that Shaw might as well see out his contract. But once Tony Shaw started wheeling out, ”The boys had a dip” every week, TCP quickly changed his mind. His argument was that everybody simply seemed to be going through the motions. The ultimate point is that you often hear coaches and commentators talk about Teams ”having a damn dip.” “Much-maligned” was another instigated by Tony Shaw, made applicable by the majority of players on each of his Team Lists from 1996-to-1999. We used to have so many players who were “much-maligned.” In fact, Gavin Brown, Gavin Crosisca, Nathan Buckley, and Scotty Burns aside, just about every player coached and recruited by Shaw was “much-maligned.” So I didn’t want to bring that term back into the public forum. I thought, ”The Unheralded” was much nicer, and had a touch of mystique about it. This applies to the ungainly players, some who are downright awkward, some who are downright ugly in the way they go about their game, who rarely get the acclaim they deserve, but often receive the criticism when things are going wrong. For some, the criticism is justified. Under Tony Shaw, there were players who simply were incapable of playing football at the Senior level in the AFL. Under Mick Malthouse, this List has been whittled away. In fact, right about now I don’t believe there’s anybody on our List who isn’t physically capable of Football at a Senior level. Had Lists remained up to 50 players per Club, these are the sort of the guys you could afford to carry and nurture in hopes they’d reach the plateau required to play Senior Football. I mean, look at it – even somebody like Tony Shaw, who was one of the Club’s Favorite Sons as a player, (even if he continues to tarnish this reputation throughout the media), wouldn’t have survived long enough in today’s game to make an impact. He would’ve been cut, which would’ve been a shame, because ultimately Tony Shaw proved he could play football. (Ironically, he took nowhere near as long to prove he couldn’t coach). However, while there’s nobody on the List at today’s CFC who’re just out and out lost causes, there’s quite a few who constantly draw derision from the Collingwood Faithful. Their good efforts are overlooked, their bad taken out, highlighted, picked-apart, and debated time and time again. Well, you know, it’s pissing me off. Even TCR’s own Four Horsemen is an affectionate embrace of these sorts of guys. Tazz has given the Collingwood Faithful the capacity to proclaim the inclusion of these guys into the Senior Team with pride and warmth. Whenever any of these guys do something, Tazz has advised the war-cry of, ”He’s a Horsemen! Whhoooo!” (Sorry, I added the Whhooo myself). There’s too many of the Unheralded to fit into the four spots of The Horsemen. Also, T4H (The 4 Horsemen - now there’s a T-Shirt idea!) are the elite of this brigade. However, I thought I’d take a look at the whole lot of them. Mark Richardson - the founder of T4H, and probably as maligned as you could get. It wasn’t until 1999 that he really became valuable to the Club, although he retains his proclivity to take the ball, lumber down the field as if he were Frankenstein fleeing from a posse of angry villagers, and have no idea what he’s going to do next. Let me just preface the inclusion of Richo with the qualifier that – like others who’ll be on this List - he played under Tony Shaw. Given that nobody really came up under Shaw, I don’t really blame any of these players for their development being so stunted, sporadic, and belated. However, in Richo’s case, he’s finally receiving the plaudits he deserves for his good work in defense. Of course, his newest threat is that there are younger players looking to supercede him. Glen Freeborn - almost deserves the criticism he receives, his biggest problem is his capacity to disappear from 85 minutes of a game. But I say he almost deserves the criticism he gets because he’s not a Half-back. He’s professional enough to fill the role, but Malthouse’s tendency to fling jibs down there (such as Tyson Lane) is bewildering. They don’t have the ability to be defenders, so how much blame can you lay on them when they stuff up? Rupert Betheras - has long been a favorite of TCR, people tend to overlook that Rupe was second behind only Buckley in 1999 for possessions at Collingwood. Malthouse often overmatches him in defense, using him as a stopgap measure. When somebody like O’Loughlin or Bizzell kill him, they blame Rupe. Well, if I was constantly placed on opponents who were quicker and taller than me, I’d say it’s understandable when I get beaten. Rupe has seemed to draw these jobs due to his ability in the air. Has immense character, and for as much stock as you put in it, I recall Tony Shaw saying Rupe Betheras had more passion to play for Collingwood than Nathan Buckley. (Okay, distinguish here - passion, not ability). One story I recall about Rupe was following the jumper presentation in 1999, he held his guernsey aloft and cried out, ”Go Pies!” On character, passion and commitment, Rupe would always be one of the first I chose in Collingwood’s Team. Stunning Steve McKee - so he can’t ruck very well, but around the ground he’s useful and his skills are better than most. Too many people fault McKee for how much he cost us – McKee and Richmond’s 7th Pick for Clinton King and our 3rd Pick. We picked up Danny Roach, who’s now retired, while Richmond picked up Aaron Fiora. Both King and Fiora have become mainstays and valuable contributors at Richmond. A lot of people have lamented this deal, and have somehow accredited blame to McKee. I agree it was a shocking deal – it should’ve been a straight swap, McKee for King. But again, distinguish – McKee’s not to blame for how much he cost, so factoring in resentment resulting from that deal against McKee is unfair. As an aside, it’s recently occurred to me that Collingwood’s Ruck-coaches have all been right-footers and right-sided players, while McKee’s a lefty. People might think that means nothing, that a right-hander simply has to reverse his instructions to teach a lefty the ropes, but that’s not the case. As a left-hander myself, I can tell you we do everything pretty strangely, and the philosophies which apply to the majority won’t always apply to us, the minority. It’s a right-handed world, it’s been designed that way, and it’s taught that way. I can’t write in a folder without tilting it due to the clips getting in the way of my hand, and I recall during a Bar & Hospitality course quite a few years ago we lefties were callously instructed to, ”Learn to live with changing – you have to change for everything else, anyway” when it came to service of meals. So it might be worthwhile finding another lefty-ruckman to tutor McKee. (And don’t forget to chant, ”What!? What!? What!?” whenever he goes near the ball on ANZAC Day! Seeing as how he’ll be rucking parts of the game, that should be easy enough). Shane Wakelin and Carl Steinfort - I’m lumping these two together because they draw the same sort of criticism. In the first half of last year, both blitzed in their respective positions – Wakelin as a tall defender, Steinfort as a tagging midfielder. But they both incurred niggling injuries and their form suffered. Seriously, look at it, but last year Shane Wakelin was playing so well – and notching up an impressive array of scalps – that Simon Prestigiacomo only got 30 seconds of game-time in two matches! (And that 30 seconds was to run on right before the siren went for half-time). Steinfort was playing so well that his opposition for the role of tagging-midfielder, Andrew Dimattina, couldn’t get anywhere near the Senior Team. What drives me nuts – and a lot of Collingwood supporters are guilty of this – is living so absolutely in the moment. That’s fine. But often people jump on a player’s bandwagon (as they did with these two early last year), but then jump off when things get bad and criticize as if they’d never offered support in the first place. The same occurs vice-versa. It’d be nice if there was an acknowledgement to what these players have displayed previously and were given the chance to recapture that form. Paul Licuria - I’ve been one of the biggest critics of his disposal, but he’s almost graduated from this group. I think what showed he’s really coming of age and is mindful of his faults was the article in last week’s Herald-Comic. Licuria revealed his turnover against Carlton had him shellshocked. More than anything else, I love to know players are feeling their mistakes and working to address them. Chad Rintoul - adds toughness and looked good last year up until he broke his leg against Essendon. This year, seems to be playing well within himself, as if he’s secretly concerned of injuring himself and being out for half a year again. Was a late withdrawal against Hawthorn, but I suspect he was withdrawn due to the racial vilification which resulted earlier in the year during a Box Hill-Williamstown match. Just my own paranoid suspicion, but why give Hawthorn the ammunition and a focal point for aggression? Rhyce Shaw - a broken collarbone against Port Melbourne in Round #2 of 2000 really seemed to set back his development. Otherwise, he’s really suffered from Collingwood’s Quest for a small defender. We’ve thrown just about everybody back there, and Rhyce has played large portions of his career with Williamstown in that role. When he’s given the leeway to be singlemindedly attacking, he may flourish. Ben Johnson - the best thing about Johnson is his attack on the ball. His shirtfront last year of Mitchell White, for which he was suspended, shows his toughness. Another who’s suffered due to having to play in defense. I remember when Johnson first started, he played as a Forward, and was quite cheeky and effective in doing so. Wherever he ends up, he really needs to work on his disposal because criticism of it is justified. Ben Kinnear - another who deserves the criticism he receives, Kinnear promises so much but so rarely delivers. The turnover against Carlton aside, he’s actually a very good kick. I still think he’d be a good option for a Full-back, but regardless of where he’s played, Kinnear’s going to have find his way and mentally mature quick, otherwise this is certain to be his final year. Andrew Dimattina - Dimattina is one of these guys I’d love to sit in the Reserves for three years. Is slow, his disposal is awkward, but he’s tough, can be ubiquitous and really fights for his spot. I can see the potentiality for him to develop into a worthwhile in and-under-midfielder, (a la Tony Shaw!) but obviously, he’s got a long way to go in too little time. Simon Prestigiacomo - I used to complain about this guy as much as anybody, but since 2000 he’s been one of the mainstays of our defense. He has fantastic acceleration, is rarely badly beaten, and is as solid as a rock in defense. I believe the vulnerabilities of the defenders I’ve listed are exacerbated by the lack of cohesion in our Back-6. It seems we’re always chopping and changing which smaller guys are playing back there, and as aforementioned, most of the time the smaller guys – Freeborn, Lane, Betheras, Nick Davis, even Tarkyn Lockyer, etc. – are stopgap solutions, (which really shows when they’re badly beaten). So it’s going to be hard for any of the defenders to shine because I imagine too often they not only have their own opponent to mind, but are conscious of mopping up after the others. However, whenever we can settle that Back-6 down with the same regulars, with the same unit, I’m sure some of these guys will really flourish. As for Presti, he’s the foundation and cornerstone the Back-6 has to be built around. Of that List, I believe there’s only a couple who are looking at their last year at Collingwood if they don’t improve radically. Kinnear’s definitely one and has been there long enough and been delegated enough responsibility that it’s up to him whether he’s going to step up or fade into obscurity. Dimattina’s another, often dominating the standard of the VFL. The question is whether he can bring that form up to the next level - and whether we can wait for him to do so. Unfortunately, the size of Lists doesn’t exactly accommodate keeping a player around and waiting for him to mature. Every Coach seems to have their pet-project player – hell, Kevin Sheedy kept that thug Dean Wallis on Essendon’s List for 10 years, and as a footballer he was utterly hopeless. But when you start carrying more than a couple of these guys, it becomes a liability. Of the recycled players – Wakelin, Steinfort, and Rintoul – I believe they’ve done enough to warrant the opportunity to recapture prior form without all the speculation on their immediate futures. These three were great for us early last year until injury cut them down; given that the whole Team List is reported as “underdone”, it’s possible to accept that fitness and injury is impinging these three also. They deserve their chances. Ultimately – and despite our nature as Collingwood supporters – let’s find a bit of perspective when it comes to some of these players. When they’ve run themselves out of chances, I’ll be amongst the first to verbally blast them into oblivion. But never before. Later.
|
|
April 18th. This could get messy. Well. Mick Malthouse says turnovers cost us. I could’ve told him that was occurring before he’d coached a game at Collingwood. I could’ve listed the players to avoid. And half a season into his first year, I could’ve named the players, from the new additions, to avoid. But 47 senior games, 9 pre-season games and a host of pre-matches later, the fact’s occurred to Mick. Now. Two and an half years since he first took a training session at Collingwood. I’m probably being unfair, as I’m sure he would’ve always been aware of disposal-errors. And just to clarify, but it’s “disposal errors” as opposed to “skill errors”, as the latter suggests there was some skill originally at the Club to work with. Following Tony Shaw’s 4 years of coaching-hell at Collingwood, we all know that wasn’t the case. So Malthouse’s first effective duty as coach – after clearing out the deadwood, increasing fitness, improving stature, and essentially needing to reinvent the wheel at the CFC – would be to introduce skill to the Club. In fact, it was skill’s first visit in 8 years. Hello, skill! How'd you like the place since your last visit? Now, belated as it is, for the next trick, it’s time to sharpen those skills before, so help me, the sacred turf at the MCG opens up in protest of all the clangers and swallows the Collingwood team whole – which I imagine would be quite a thing to see. It’s been know to happen. Really, it has. What’d you think happened to the University Football Club? There’s two schools of thought about whether skills can be significantly improved. Most argue that the Clanger Kings will always be born to Royalty, that no matter what you do, they’ll commit the same errors for the rest of eternity – and the day after that. The minority think that unlike a John Howard apology, it is possible. That’s what I think. Like smoking, like drinking, like gambling, disposal – comprising style, decision-making, and execution – is a habit. With enough work and self-application it can be changed. The question is whether the main offenders at Collingwood have the character to do something about it. Because I know if it were me I’d pick up the football an hour every night on my own time and do something about it. I’d go to a park, scatter a litany of targets – both high and low – and practice hitting them with the ball, both on the run, and from a standing start. (Warning – Dermott Brereton-like spiel incoming!). When I was younger I used to do something similar. Using my drive as goals, I’d kick the crap out of the ball for a kick-out, chase it down, recover it, take a bounce or two, and take a shot from wherever I’d ended up. Even with my eccentric left foot style, ultimately I was nailing everything on the run, regardless of angle. (I should’ve probably practice my standing-shots also, as they were, and remain to this day, God-awful. Oh, this ends the Dermott Brereton spiel, too). The point is it can be done. Maybe not wholly, like the ex-smoker who still sneaks one every now and again, but at least the percentages can be improved for the better. It’s simply a matter of changing habits. That’s how easy it is in theory; now it’s up to the guilty parties. On that, I was very glad to see in the Herald Comic Paul Licuria lament his poor disposal in Friday night's game. It shows he's taking to heart what's happening out there, instead of simply shrugging his shoulders and dismissing it. I hope Ben Johnson and Ben Kinnear are feeling similarly. And as a sidenote, albeit an important one, I'm not talking about these players reinventing their respective kicking-styles. There's been (and are) plenty of successful footballers who've had ungainly styles. The point is taking whatever their style is and perfecting it. Most of the time, a decision is only made poor by its execution. Had Licuria and Kinnear hit their respective targets, there wouldn't be this furore. Of course, it’d help if we had a Skill’s Coach who had, well, skills. The likes of Mick Malthouse, Mick Broadbridge, Dean Laidley, Brad Gotch, and Gavin Brown, were hardly renowned for their finesse as players. Actually, the lot of them were more renowned for their courage. So how about getting somebody down with a little, well, skills? For those who expect me to now trot out the name of Peter Daicos, as I usually would, well, you’re wrong. I’d actually look toward Malcolm Blight due to his iconoclastic approach to the game. Some remedies require an entirely different outlook. I don’t think there’s enough of that going on down at Collingwood. Even a stodgy, unimaginative imbecile like Leigh Matthews has the capacity to try and pull a surprise move every now and then. We need to think outside the box. That goes for all of Collingwood’s on-field woes, one of the worst of which – at the moment – is the inability to get kickstarted. Part of the problem is lack of rebound drive from the half-back line. The way I see it, you can get away with a serviceable Full-back as long as you have a good-CHB, (as was the case in our Premiership year). With Mark Richardson out for up to a month (and possibly longer, as he's notoriously slow in recovering), the time is ripe to find the next generation’s CHB. But more than finding somebody to physically fit the position, we need a player who’ll have the audacity to charge off his line, cause havoc for the opposition up-field, and create play to get the Team moving. The options are:
b) Chris Tarrant - Driver from Buckley Surfers suggested this way back in 2000, (around the time I was shouting we should go after Barry Hall). Any defensive position would drive that lackadaisical nature from Tarrant by virtue that he’d have to concentrate the whole time. Would add some genuine class to the Back-6, but still have the capacity to float forward and kick 1 or 2 goals. Would also be a good kick-out target. c) Anthony Rocca - imagine Anthony charging through the center as the ball’s bounced and the opposition are scrambling to take possession. Would add genuine strength to defense, and be a good kick-out target; moreover, as the executor of the second kick out of defense, he could propel us directly into attack. Also has the potential to drift forward and kick 1 or 2. However, as Anthony’s become our first rucking option, this is unlikely to happen. d) Jarrod Molloy - would be a combination of Anthony and Tarrant. To many he’d probably seem the perfect choice, but I also like to look at what the position might bring out of the player, and I don’t think CHB would bring anything more out of Molloy than he already gives for the team. Molloy is also rumored to abhor playing at CHB, and while players have to be professional enough to play where they’re put, you wouldn’t want Molloy’s desire eroding, which could happen. e) Simon Prestigiacomo - much better than rated, most only considering him serviceable. I actually believe taking him off the last line of defense would help him greatly. Full-back’s rarely given him the opportunity to be attacking in his own right, this generally caused by the stopgaps and misfits played around him. He’s had to stay back and mind the house since nobody else has the capacity to do it. f) Me - sweeping left-foot kick which could go anywhere nowadays, will leap for anything if there’s a “Mark of the Year” possibility, generally lazy on the training track, and expensive at $850,000 per year. Definitely a possibility considering the existing options.
Considering you don’t want to radically alter the make-up of the Team or put the burden on guys savagely underdone, Simon Prestigiacomo is the best option. He never was a Full-back, having been drafted as a CHF before Tony Shaw inexplicably flung him back there. Whoa, hang on, it wasn’t inexplicable – Tony Shaw threw everybody back there. My mistake. Sorry. (Then there was the game against Richmond in 1999 when everybody started behind the Half-back line). At any rate, it makes much more sense for Presti to be CHB. As a guy who was a CHF (albeit only as a junior), he’ll know the mind-set of his opponent, the way they think, the way they want to move. And for those who call Presti just a plodder or a dud, he’s a lot better than he’s been capable of showing. Due to our woeful defense, he hasn’t had the license to go for a run up-field, or be attacking in his own right. He’d get that at CHB. Full-back would go to Shane Wakelin or…Ben Kinnear. I lambasted Kinnear yesterday, as have many following that performance against Carlton. Kinnear’s problems as a defender come from his tendency to float mentally out of a game. Full-back would compel him to keep his mind on the job. He’s generally a good kick, (his clanger on Friday night the result of shocking execution), is moderately paced, and a good leap. The other thing to consider is that at the beginning of 2000, he performed admirably for us at Full-back. At the time, Richardson was out with injury and it was after he returned that Kinnear was moved and drastically lost form. Finally on Kinnear, but he once was a Full-forward. Again, swapping a forward to his opposing defensive position makes much more sense than swinging them into a position with which they’ll be totally unfamiliar. For example, if you played at CHF, you’d instinctively develop an insight into the CHB position. This sort of lateral positioning has been successful enough over the years – Justin Leppitsch from Full-forward to Full-back, similarly with Ronnie McKeown for us so many years ago. When Wayne Carey played defensively, he went from CHF to CHB. It’s this understanding of the opposing position which helps players when they’re thrown back into defense. At any rate, I see Kinnear as marking time in 2002, and this would give him his last, best opportunity to make something of his career, as I can’t really see where else he could play. He’s sporadic playing further up-field in defense, and doesn’t have the instinct to play well consistently up-forward. Anchor him at full-back, and I bet both he and Presti (at CHB) will flourish. Lastly, but while trolling about the Net in my usual fashion I’ve just come to love the despair abounding amongst many of our supporters. This is classic stuff, paramount to what Carlton supporters did following their loss to the Swans. As bad as our loss to the Blues was, you have to consider the match was a wet and slippery slop-fest and would’ve evened the playing-field between most teams, regardless of Ladder-standings. And sitting at 1-2, with Hawthorn and Essendon to follow, many have recalculated that we’ll be at 1-4 in a fortnight with any hopes of playing finals slipping away. Like the ludicrous speculation on Nick Davis’s playing future, all this crap is way too premature. People accuse the Club of being soft and giving-in, then do it themselves. How’s that make any sort of sense? So I say to everybody: don’t despair. Set the example: get angry instead. It’s much healthier. Just stay rational while doing it. I don’t mind seeing/hearing people voicing their disgust, screaming maniacally (which I’ve perfected), and even letting the Club know that these levels of performance are totally and thoroughly unacceptable. The Club should know it. As I said in yesterday’s rant, it’s time they begun repaying our faith in them. But despair’s a weak choice, and as much as Collingwood has capacity to disappoint, it lets-off everybody involved too easily. So keep the passion-fires burning. Only through maintaining the intensity and pushing the boundaries can we excel; any other method simply leads the Club to the sort of cushioned falls they’ve been promising to bounce back from for the last decade. If they fall, fall hard. They're the best sort of wake-up calls. And to the Carlton supporter who took a potshot at my head from 20 feet away with a plastic bottle as myself and FBC made our way down a Southern Stand walkway, should somebody read this to you and it gets through your ugly Thorazine soaked head, next time, come voice your complaints personally, instead of using the crowd to maintain your anonymity. Because I don’t really mind the intent, but the bottle itself could’ve hit any of the kids sitting around us in the stands. But considering how cowardly the Carlton Football Club itself has become, particularly on the field, it's not surprising that their supporters are following suit. Later.
|
