![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/R23-COLvMEL.png\")
<\/p>\nTrue Believers, g\u2019day to everyone.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Well,\u00a0 a Win is a Win, and you get the four points, regardless of how you got there.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Wasn\u2019t particularly happy with that performance though it gave us the four points and allows us to head into The Finals probably from the Top 4. Now it\u2019s a different game.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Who do you reckon as Premiership favourites?\u00a0The teams that scare me most on our passage to the Premiership are Geelong (forgot them last week), WB and Hawthorn; would be happy with R24 reducing one of them.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Go Pies.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Round 24<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Collingwood 11.16.82 defeated Melbourne 11.10.76. Scoring shots 27 \/ 21, a significant difference.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Goals:<\/p>\n
Q1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2 (us) \/ 3 (them). 9 scoring shots (us) to 3 (them) for the Quarter. Margin at the first break + (positive) 1 Point;<\/p>\n
Q2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4 \/ 2. Up and down, then 3 goals scored by us. An extended period late Q2 and early Q3 had virtually no score (in fact \u2013 3 Behinds). Margin at HT + 13 Points;<\/p>\n
Q3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1 \/ 5. Late Q3 included 4 goals scored against us. Margin at final break \u2013 (negative) 10 Points;<\/p>\n
Q4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4 \/ 1. After an early Melbourne start, we scored 4 unanswered goals; and<\/p>\n
Total\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 11 \/ 11. Winning margin + 6 Points.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Statistics<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Some numbers to seek to identify where there was a substantial difference and how this reflected the game:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Statistic
\nUs \/ Them<\/p>\n
Comments<\/p>\n
Disposals
\n347 \/ 396<\/p>\n
Reflecting their game style \u2013 \u2018ball-ownership\u2019. See further comments under Possession, below. Handball \u2013 115 \/ 168 \u2013 a huge difference in a statistic that we usually pride ourselves on.<\/p>\n
Hit Outs (HO)
\n29 \/ 27<\/p>\n
A not-useful number decided by whichever ruck touches the ball first. A better assessment is \u2018HO to advantage\u2019, which I don\u2019t have. And a much, much better measure is under Clearances, below.<\/p>\n
This number surprised me \u2013 I thought we were routinely beaten \u2013 the equivalence wasn\u2019t evident to me watching.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Clearances<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Centre clearances:<\/p>\n
Stoppage clearances:<\/p>\n
26 \/ 38<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
9 \/ 14<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
17 \/ 24<\/p>\n
My observation of this was that they \u2018destroyed us\u2019, particularly from the Centre, as reflected in these numbers. Their substantial dominance of Clearances is evident here.<\/p>\n
This is a much better measure than the HO and should have indicated a major advantage to them in the next steps \u2013 Inside 50s and, ultimately, scoring. Broadly speaking, this didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Inside 50s
\n52 \/ 55<\/p>\n
The degree of our Clearance deficiency is not reflected in the Inside 50 numbers.<\/p>\n
This reflects a pretty substantial difference, negatively reflecting that we had fewer entries into goal-scoring positions. See DE below regarding how we used them.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Disposal Efficiency (DE)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
74.4% \/ 76.5%<\/p>\n
Across the whole game. They were marginally cleaner throughout.<\/p>\n
DE Inside 50
\n53.8% \/ 40.0%<\/p>\n
This difference here is huge. These numbers reflect a massive advantage to us.<\/p>\n
Linking Inside 50s and DE inside 50 mean they got the ball into the 50 (broadly, into a scoring position) more frequently, but we used it far more effectively (scored) when we got it there.<\/p>\n
This represents the overlapping of the different statistics.\u00a0You could undoubtedly work out a mathematical relationship based on historical figures, however I don\u2019t intend to do so. Needless to say, the 6% deficiency in Inside 50 numbers was, obviously matched by this 30% DE advantage.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Goals scored
\n11 \/ 11<\/p>\n
The result.<\/p>\n
Player numbers with game DE of 80%
\n9 \/ 9<\/p>\n
Free Kicks
\n22 \/ 23<\/p>\n
This surprised me. I thought that we were unfairly penalised, particularly early on \u2013 my TV is tired of being berated. Again, it was the offences not identified rather than those that were, with consistent areas of concern \u2013 caught with ball, failure to dispose correctly, in the back in tackles, etc. There were a number of \u2018late pushes after a mark\u2019 not penalised; and some that were. Critically, it was the Frees awarded \u2018at the death\u2019 that are always of most concern.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Contested Possession (CP)
\n107 \/ 134<\/p>\n
Interesting \u2013 Possession was dominated, both CP and UCP by them. This may reflect a game style in periods where they sought to pass the ball round the boundary with short kicks and safe marks, sometimes coming unstuck. Of course, we applied the same style at times, also occasionally coming unstuck.<\/p>\n
I like it when the ball is locked in our attacking half, of course, as it seemed to be for extended periods, unfortunately without useful scoring.\u00a0Note later comment \u2013 scoring a Behind is giving ball possession at a trivial cost.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Uncontested Possession (UCP)
\n222 \/ 252<\/p>\n
Turnovers
\n58 \/ 67<\/p>\n
Not too different.<\/p>\n
Possession
\n43% \/ 42%<\/p>\n
Watching, you\u2019d pretty much identify periods when the ball was in our possession with much shorter periods when it raced the length of the field and scored or they did the same thing against the flow of the game. As such, I don\u2019t understand this equivalence here.<\/p>\n
Last 10 minutes of game: 36% \/ 23%. More easily understood.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Marks<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Marks inside 50<\/p>\n
Contested marks<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
123 \/ 110<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
19 \/ 10<\/p>\n
10 \/ 15<\/p>\n
We were seriously out-marked in Contested Marks. particularly by their Backs. It reflects the failure of the delivery, to packs, rather than leading individuals.<\/p>\n
Marks inside 50 principally reflected good targeting rather than good marking. The Contested Marking deficiency reinforces this.<\/p>\n
Tackles<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Tackles inside 50<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
49 \/ 40<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
8 \/ 6<\/p>\n
This reflects a substantial advantage to us. It highlights our boys\u2019 application. Importantly, the numbers Inside 50s, as above, contribute to scoring.<\/p>\n
1%\u2019ers
\n36 \/ 37<\/p>\n
Spoils and defensive actions. Not too different.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Best:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The AFL website identifies Collingwood\u2019s Best as:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
NickD \u2013 the master even with a close tag;
\nPendles \u2013 outstanding \u2018man in charge of the midfield\u2019;
\nCameron \u2013 great performance against the undoubted best ruck in the competition, significantly aided by his work around the ground;
\nSchultz \u2013 dynamic;
\nElliott \u2013 give the guy, the \u2018nearly mark of the year\u2019 \u2013 pity it went by; and
\nDe Goey -see below.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Really good to see JDG get a mention \u2013 I thought his contribution was significant \u2013 loved that goal that Pendles passed to him. I wouldn\u2019t disagree with any of those selected, maybe the order, but would suggest a couple of others \u2013 Maynard (16 Disposals @ 93.8% DE, 385 metres Gained, 4 Score Involvement, 4 Intercept Possessions, 2 Contested Possessions and 1 Inside 50) and McCreery (note his medical treatment during the game; 18 D @ 77.8%, 222 mG, 8 SI, 3 IP, 4 CP and 4 I50). Long also had a good day at the office noting his 226 mG, 5 Tackles and 4 CP. Steele, also in spite of his late arrival replacing Howe, did well with 196 mG, 2 SI and 2 CP. Well done.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Occasionally, not frequently, it is worthwhile having a look at opposing players. Here we have:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
NickD \/ Langdon \u2013 27 D @ 70.4% DE (NickD) \/ 14 D @ 64.3% DE (Langdon), 6 \/ 0 Marks, 5 \/ 2 Tackles, 453 \/ 311 mG, 5 \/ 2 Clearances and 4 \/ 4 SI. I don\u2019t have any doubt who Won that competition. In reality, however, the measure of success will be in a comparison between a reduction in effectiveness of the target against the loss of the contribution by the tagger to his team. Here, there is a pretty obvious reduction in NickD\u2019s Disposals, but the reduction in Langdon\u2019s contribution seems far greater. NickD Won.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Coaches\u2019 Votes not yet released.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
It was a much better performance. We were smiling. With a little good fortune, and ball bounce, we could (should) have Won this by a substantial margin. Right now, that doesn\u2019t matter; some aspects for future games are worth pursuing.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Your thoughts?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Crowd:\u00a060,611.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Result:\u00a0This was a\u00a0big improvement, but \u2026<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I think we coordinated between players much better however there were periods when, against the flow of the game, they got away from us \u2013 Q1 their 3 scoring shots were against our 9. We appeared unable to control these break-away moves. Although only for limited periods, their scoring was effective against our kicking. Our kicking early on was awful.
\nBall-handling\u00a0was pretty good by both teams.
\nThe close scoring equivalence\u00a0was reflected in their\u00a0advantage represented by Inside 50 numbers\u00a0counteracted (obviously to a degree) by our massive dominance in Disposal Efficiency inside 50 numbers.
\nWe\u00a0still\u00a0badly need to put together a \u2018Kick-in\u2019 plan, both as a negative to stop their kick-ins and as a positive to facilitate ours.
\nHigh kicks into the 50 to packs, that we seemed to revert to, is not the best avenue to the Forwards (or out of our Backline) even with Cox (if he was playing) or Cameron as targets. Much better avenues are lower, harder kicks to specific targets, moving in different directions to confuse the defenders. The speed of high kicks also allowed defenders to intercept or, at the least disrupt, the passage of the ball.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
In summary, we Won,\u00a0but not\u00a0comprehensively.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Next<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Now there\u2019s a good question. Next weekend is a week off. The following weekend is FW1 (presumable Finals Week 1). Likely games, of significance to us:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
So the rest of R24 is significant. Some issues to be resolved, with best guesses:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Adelaide to Win over North, even at Marvel \u2013 stay Top.
\nExpect Geelong to Win over Richmond at the MCG \u2013 stay 2nd, unless Adelaide Loses, then they go to the Top and Adelaide drops to 2nd;
\nBL meet Hawthorn at the Gabba. If Hawthorn Wins they could jump over BL and us into 3rd\u00a0position with BL dropping to 5th; us to 4th. If BL Wins they move to 3rd\u00a0and we drop to 4th\u00a0too \u2013 potential opponents FW1 \u2013 Adelaide at AO or Geelong at the MCG;
\nGWS, meeting St Kilda, are likely to stay 6th;
\nWB versus Freo at Marvel will decide 7th, 8th\u00a0and 9th. If Freo Wins they could move, theoretically into the Top 4 subject to their percentage. In that situation, and if the GC beat Essendon in that final H&A game, the WB will be pushed out of the Eight. If they Lose they are likely to drop out of the Eight with both the WB and GC moving up, noting the GC has another game, against Essendon,<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Watch the Ladder, as this weekend (and next Wednesday) progresses.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Date \/ Time \/ Location?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
TBD.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
An Opponent?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
TBA.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Us:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Context?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0We have dropped to 4th\u00a0place on the Ladder (actually today we are 3rd, as I am writing). If Adelaide stays in the top position we could end up in FW1 facing Adelaide at AO. I am confident we could defeat Adelaide , even given their home crowd.\u00a0Your thoughts?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Changes?\u00a0We need our best team for this game\u00a0again. Injuries and their significance are not yet confirmed \u2013 absolutely critical. Suggested changes:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Outs: Howe (Injured?), Mihocek (Injured?), McCreery (Injured?), McStay, Lipinski.\u00a0Your suggestions?<\/p>\n
Ins: \u00a0Cox,\u00a0Hill, \u00a0Steene, Cochran and\u00a0De Mattia;<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Your thoughts?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Game Plan\u00a0\u2013 No changes of substance from past. A couple of points, as usual:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Application. Nothing is more important. Positives and negatives totally demonstrated in our last few games. And Attitude is King.<\/p>\n
Taggers. Tagging roles might be useful, including an occasional hard lock-down role on their Forwards \/ Midfield? And protecting our players? That should also be key.<\/p>\n
Midfield Management. Pendles guidance \/ on-field coaching to the collective Midfield remains critical.<\/p>\n
Passing. Accuracy of passes by foot and hand is critical. Remember a misdirected pass resulting in a turnover of the ball passes possession to our opponent, immediately shifting control of the game to them.<\/p>\n
Drive. Drive out of the Backline is usually a key part of our game plan\u2013 much better in Adelaide.\u00a0Kick-ins are a continuing issue\u00a0\u2013 we need to have a plan that everyone knows and is able to implement.<\/p>\n
Kicking for Goal.\u00a0This was awful early in our last game. Instead of being 3 or 4 goals up, the margin at the first break was a single Point. The players need to consider and apply the willingness to pass the ball inside the 50. The key players with the ability to kick the hard goal is laudable, but not always successful.\u00a0Ball delivery needs to be to the best goal-kicking position.\u00a0Importantly, scoring a Behind is a waste \u2013 for 1 Point you hand over ball-possession to the opposition. It\u2019s not worth it \u2013 get the ball into a better position.<\/p>\n
Tackles.\u00a0Still a\u00a0failing with opponents spinning out of tackles or brushing off the tackler. This has been one of our strengths this season; we need to get it back. Love the multiple tacklers.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Our Aim?\u00a0Be happy. Worth reinforcing \u2013 our team, yes, we are part of it, were incredibly dour during the OR game against GWS in Sydney; same against Hawthorn\u00a0a couple of weeks or so ago. Everyone, players and supporters, need to get the smile back.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Summary?\u00a0We\u00a0should Win\u00a0our next game to give our team another week off, following.\u00a0The danger is our frequent approach to playing our opponent at their strength. This has to stop. We have to pursue the game to our standard regardless of who we are playing. So? Go for the Jugular. Seek to Win well (and take the stress pressure of we, long-suffering, Pies\u2019 supporters).<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Winning Selection. Collingwood to Win by \u2026\u2026; BOG: \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026Goal kickers\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
TV:\u00a0FTA coverage not yet out. Go to to monitor. Or go to Kayo\u00a0or Fox Footy.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Weather: Watch the weather conditions in Melbourne. Boots?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ground Reports?\u00a0I hope some of you are going, regardless of the opposition, whenever that is on, and where?\u00a0Reports please (after or before)? I\u2019d especially like to hear from the armchair warriors watching from afar?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Other:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
AFLW \u2013\u00a0Happening, as I write. R2, GWS are currently leading at Vic Park. R3, next, is against Melbourne (sitting on top of the Ladder against our 14thplace) on Sunday, 31 August also at Vic Park; bounce at 1.05pm. Good luck, ladies.<\/p>\n
VFL \u2013 Next game tomorrow \u2013 Collingwood (7thon Ladder) versus Williamtown (10th) at Vic Park; bounce at 2.05pm. Go boys.<\/p>\n
VFLW team \u2013 Terrific start, ladies. First two Finals\u2019 games from 2ndplace on the Ladder \u2013 FW1: beating North by 13 Points (North placed on the top of the Ladder) and SF: beating BH Hawks by 25 Points (BH placed 3rd\u00a0on the Ladder). Next \u2013 a week off, I think, then another Prelim Final, or straight to the Grannie. Good luck, ladies.<\/p>\n
Anything else, everyone?\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Next:<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Finals. Note there is a week off next weekend.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
This is our year; still believe! Always believe; never, ever give up! Go Pies.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Cam<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au<\/a>\u00a0 home page click HERE<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Do you enjoy the Almanac concept? \u00a0<\/p>\n Become an Almanac (annual) member \u2013 CLICK HERE<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/FA-logo-laptop-with-Sherrin-5-2.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/fa-banner-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"True Believers, g\u2019day to everyone. \u00a0 Well,\u00a0 a Win is a Win, and you get the four points,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":91191,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[560],"tags":[638,64,63,55,639,85],"class_list":["post-91190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-afl","tag-afl","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-australian-football-league","tag-australianfootballleague","tag-sports"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91190\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/91191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}