The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

The annual 'Good Old Collingwood Letdown' has just begun

Daniel Wells is a crucial Collingwood asset. (AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Roar Guru
8th May, 2017
22

Saturday was the annual Good Old Collingwood Letdown.

Just a week earlier, the Magpies had beaten then-undefeated Geelong by 29 points in a stirring victory that some saw as season-defining, as well as a platform on which to resurrect their finals hopes. But while that was the hype, most of us knew what was likelier to follow – exactly what did.

We’re used to it. We go to games with wariness. It’s not so much about the margins, but the effort. One week Collingwood are full of high energy and will exhibit crisp passing, fast movement of the ball, and frantic pressure. The following week, they’ll appear lethargic, miss easy targets, seem uncertain of their structures, and the pressure drops way off.

Why? Which is the real Collingwood?

That the good Collingwood is the model – the ‘brand’ – the team aspire to consistently become is an easy argument to make. But the issue becomes how long does it take to implement a gameplan?

You can exclude the first two years of coach Nathan Buckley’s tenure, as his assault on the finals in 2012–13 was with the list built for predecessor Mick Malthouse, and Buckley largely employed Malthouse’s gameplan.

It’s from 2014 – once a number of 2010 premiership stalwarts had retired (or been retired) or been traded out – that Buckley (and those around him) should be measured.

There does remain a qualifier that Collingwood’s list build and list management overall hasn’t helped whatever Buckley’s aspiring to accomplish – pick 6 Matthew Scharenberg has played only four games to date, although he was drafted back in 2013. Nathan Freeman, from the same draft, played zero.

Advertisement

Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley

Tim Broomhead, Jackson Ramsey, and Ben Kennedy haven’t played much either. Free agents such as Clinton Young, Jordan Russell, and Quinten Lynch, did little for Collingwood’s long-term planning. Successes – such as Brodie Grundy and Taylor Adams – have been few. Collingwood have failed to replace the outgoing players. That takes the ‘build’ out of ‘rebuild’ – or at least hurts the intention.

So while they have a relatively full list at their disposal now, it does remain in areas an inexperienced list. Their forward line is built on 21-year-old Darcy Moore with just 33 games under his belt.

Defence this season has largely been made up of Tyson Goldsack, Ben Reid, and Jeremy Howe (all experienced), complemented by 20-year-old Brayden Maynard (36 games), 22-year-old Jackson Ramsey (15 games), and 24-year-old Josh Smith (26 games). At some point, they will inject 21-year-old Matthew Scharenberg (four games).

However, while inexperience might contribute to some issues, it does not explain them all – particularly the inconsistency. Endeavour doesn’t require experience. You could’ve played two games, 20 games, or 200 games – endeavor will (or should) be the same for one and all. At Collingwood over the last three seasons (and counting) it hasn’t been. That’s something for which the coaching staff need to take responsibility.

It’s one thing to work toward some ideal – some gameplan which, given how they continue to strive for it, they must believe will advantage them over the opposition. Geelong did it under Mark Thompson, firing away with their globetrotting, handball-happy gameplan, and they did click eventually (although a big help there was the injection of Gary Ablett into the midfield). Once they did click, their football was breathtaking and they dominated the competition.

At times, you see Collingwood click and they do look good, but that’s the exception, not the rule, and after all this time the brainstrust should question whether they’ll ever make it work, and whether it’s still worth pursuing. Certainly, the Dogs under Luke Beveridge and Adelaide under Don Pike didn’t take this long to imprint their brand on their teams.

Advertisement

Darcy Moore Collingwood Magpies AFL 2016

I can only imagine that, as a player, and as an individual, Nathan Buckley succeeded as he did by attacking challenges with unrelenting ferocity, single-minded determination, and an unyielding will. He pushed himself, reset the bar, pushed himself again, and so on and so on, to get the best out of himself.

And that works fine with an individual and an achievable physical goal. But this is not doing ten more push-ups. It’s not doing ten more reps. It’s something contingent upon the different personalities selected to accomplish it, and at the mercy of the opposition who will actively seek to unravel it. As hard as Collingwood try to make it work, if it hasn’t clicked after all this time, it’s unlikely to.

I was prepared to give Nathan Buckley every chance going into this season, given the misfortune he’s experienced with the list build and the revolving doors of football managers. Those problems aren’t excuses. They are real. Part of me – the fatalistically optimistic Collingwood supporter in me who believes in fairy tales (read: the idiot) – still hopes there’ll be some insane revival.

But, in the end, those who succeed in football as coaches are those who understand and play to their strengths, adapt, and evolve.

Those who don’t flounder in the disappointment.

close