Good post
As I see it the Collingwood model has been built over the past 6 YEARS around three primary areas. DATA, SYSTEMS and PRACTICE

Data around fitness, workloads, of course possesions ( around team stats) and all of the other data they collect with the dozens of assistants they have at the club

Systems around team play, condensing the forward and back players to roll down approximately a kick and a half apart. This has the effect of constantly putting opposition under pressure with numbers at cpontests. Woven into all of that are individual player instructions and team within team play.

Practice around drill drill and drill again. You would all remember when Richardson was there and had his devlopment program where the players were schooled constantly on where they need to be and what they had to do.

My point is that Collingwood have programmed this success over a 6 year period. It just isn't about the last 2 years. And by the way, it shits me to death to see they will be successful for the next 3-5 years

_________________
Go BLues

Nice post. I do see them being successful for a while but am hoping changes to the interchange rules, a draw closely equal to what the rest of the league has to deal with and other teams like us coming up and copying parts of their game and improving on it can keep the damage they cause to the football world to as minimum.

Very valid point, but remember that systems and game plans have very short shelf lives, the clarkson cluster only gave them the 2008 flag. Teams that have dominated for years are built around high quality players that can adapt to opposition tactics Essendon*, Brisbane & Cats all had very high quality players.

Collingwood may win this year and may win the next few, but it won't be via some wonder game plan or system, but the improvement in each of their players.

Their game plan was developed to counter one team. Geelong.
Geelong had a run and carry over-possess the footy through the corridor plan that nobody else could counter on a regular basis. We saw it a couple of times last night in the last quarter when Collingwood had shut up shop to make sure they didn't get injured and miss next week. So someone, (presumably Mick) sat down with his team to develop a gameplan to counter it, just as teams had created gameplans to counter the Hawks rolling zone the year before.

The Collingwood plan is a simple one.

From a kickout, tap the footy, run 15 metres and pump it long to a contest near the boundary. Take a mark you are off and running. If not, create a stioppage. In general play, play the boundary so that turnovers will probably cause an out of bounds and not a run through the middle F50 entry like it does with other teams (read Carlton there as well). They then centre the footy at the last minute to a leading forward but if one is not available, they continue to run the ball to the pockets and have a ping. Last night they kicked straight but it is a risky business. That's why Didak kicks so many freak goals. He has to or they would all miss. Which they sometimes do.

I may have imagined it last night but they seemed to have predominately left footers running the left side, which is what soccer teams like to do. If not, they used their left sides pretty well. That way they are kicking with the natural swing around the boundary and not curving towards the line.

When the footy is on the boundary, the players from the other side of the ground defend the middle in case the opposition gets a possie and tries to centre it. Any possession they then get is in the corridor and they go long to Cloke or Dawes. Collingwood rarely kick across the ground to switch play, they kick it back and then across to minimise the risk. Very occasionally, someone will run and carry the footy through the corridor to cause a bit of confusion and it works a treat.

Now Ratts will have to do the same sort of thing. He will have to develop a plan that can counter the Collingwood model. It will obviously involve a lot more inside footy and players who can tackle and withstand a tackle. If there is a flaw in the Collingwood plan, it is because they love to swarm around the contest to prevent a quick clearance. Getting hte footy away from the pack and RUNNING will open up the game. That's what Geelong wanted to do but couldn't. Someone has to work out how. Ratts has six months to get competitive with Collingwood or we will be consigned to also-rans for the near future.

I just hope the Saints can close them down and win. (ouch) Can't see the Dogs getting to the GF in my wildest dreams.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

http://finalsiren.com/MatchDetails.asp? ... e76490d2c7

Round 19 2005

Pies were up by 15 points with 3 1/2 minutes remaining.

Win the game and they would have pick 5.

Lose and they would have picks 2 and 5.

Only Carlton tanks.

It will likely be the first premiership in recent years that has partly been as a result of tanking/bottoming out.

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch

Hawthorn landed Buddy and Roughead with a priority pick and a first round pick.

Plus Ellis and Dowler in 2005.

They wouldn't have tanked.

Every team's got a couple of early draft picks.
It's the 2nd and 3rd tier players that runs hard and performs 4 quarters that wins you games.
Hard running and contested possessions wins you premierships.

It pisses me off seeing how good Collingwood is.

Didak and Beams coast when the opposition have the ball and don't chase hard.

Didak is a squib.

You're overselling them IMO Baz.
They are playing with an intensity and ferocity that comes from every player having total belief in the game plan and system. That combination of 100% belief in their systems and the physical capability to carry it out without compromise is a rare situation and IMO, will definitely bring them short term success. St Kilda had it for about 18 months and Geelong did for a year or so. History tells us though it's not substainable for extended periods.

As Dane Swan mentioned tonight on Channel 10, this style of play was only initiated last pre-season. Many clubs are attempting similar but Collingwood are doing it far better than most. The main difference between Collingwood and Carlton is they have the bigger bodies to carry it off. Look at last nights game. They tackled Geelong ferociously and stopped them freeing their hands to dish off the ball.
Carlton failed dismally at that when we played Geelong. We had the intent to tackle but we were'nt able to stop the continual ball movement. I'd suggest that's why players like Andrew Walker are being moved on.
If you employ a zone press and allow the ball through the gaps, you'll be scored against easily.

As for sustained success, teams will be all over this game style by Round 18 next year and the Pies will be back in the pack. Nothing lasts forever when it comes to tactical superiority. Just ask Hawthorn.

With regard to Richardsons academy, it was all about ball control and basic skill repetition. As an example, Marty Clarke was challenged to pick the ball up off the deck and kick the ball to himself 100 times. All without touching the ball once with his hands. That took him a couple of months to master before he could move onto his next challenge. Many of the skill challenges were repetitive and basic tests involving controlling the footy, having a footy in your hands all the time, basic skill sessions many basketballers use all the time like like body wraps (team challenges etc). There was very little actual work on "where to stand" etc. It's been etched in folklore as some sort of panacea of player development but if you talk to Alan Richardson, you'll find it's far more basic than expected.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

they do have some big bodies but names like thomas, wellingham, beams, toovey, sidebottom, blair, reid, pendlebury and goldsack have me thinking lean (and also who the @#$%&! are these blokes) rather than big.

Don't ruin an argument with facts. Their developmental rate is light years ahead of ours

_________________
If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!

Inexperience.

Look at the lists of the top 4, Count the number of players over 27 yo.

We need to get more games into our players and recruit more experienced players.

I agree re the game plan but if you recruit players who can not kick or hit targets, it does not matter how good the coaching or game plan is ---the team won't be able to execute. The start of Carlton's problems revolve around a list who butcher the ball