We’re back in the flow of proper weekly Notebooks with a whole round to dissect and discuss.
Today’s edition features an in-depth deep dive into two topics:
1) How Richmond controlled the game in the third quarter against Carlton despite not owning field position
2) The shift in Collingwood’s offensive style to start 2024 and what may be causing it
Let’s get going.
—–
Subscribers on the $5 Patreon tier and above have early access to the weekly Notebook on Tuesday nights/Wednesday mornings, before they become free for all on Wednesday evening.
For those who are keen to sign up to The Shinboner Patreon for extra benefits, there are three tiers available in 2024:
$2.50 – Debutant – To show support for the site without receiving any extra features
$5 – Rising Star – The first level where there are extra features and early access for certain things
$10 – Brownlow – First access to everything and anything set up for Patrons
To find out more details and sign up, head here for the Patreon page.
—–
Controlling game flow: Richmond’s third quarter change
Down two key position players and a vital midfielder, Richmond were up against it against Carlton. As the third quarter started, at the ground it felt only a matter of time until the Blues pulled away.
Yet 30 minutes later, Richmond had won the quarter and turned for home with a seven-point lead. On the surface, it seemed like a fluke the Tigers had achieved it while conceding nineteen inside 50s for the term.
But in reality, they largely controlled the game flow for the quarter despite spending long periods in their back half, making for a fascinating case study.
Let’s start with Richmond in possession. The first half pinballed back and forth at a rapid pace, but after the break, forced to adapt to shrinking personnel – both in height and numbers – the Tigers changed tack.
Centre corridor? What’s that? It was almost completely avoided during the third term.
The theory: Cut one side of the ground off when in possession to make defending easier when the ball is turned over. Turnovers will happen – they’re inevitable. It’s how – or whether – a team defends after one which determines their likelihood of winning.
Here’s an example. Because of how Richmond moved – relatively safe, but still taking territory – when the turnover does come they’re defending from a position of strength and Carlton can’t capitalise.
The next example is a more defensive version of the above. As the ball goes long and high outside defensive 50, there’s a strong shell behind the ball.
When Carlton win possession back and go inside 50, they’re met with so many numbers still in defensive position for Richmond. Other sides in a normal situation – even the Tigers on a different day – look to push out and spread the ground. Not here, and another Blues inside 50 amounts to nothing.
By cutting off one side of the ground as often as possible and keeping stability behind the ball they were able to stay in the game. For the soccer fans out there, it reminded me a hell of a lot of a team playing with 10 men: judicious with movement both in and out of possession.
Combine all this with Carlton’s refusal to be creative with their movement – as Jack Silvagni mentioned on radio over the weekend – and we’re left with a Richmond side able to control game flow for a quarter despite being severely undermanned.
Carlton only managed 3.2 – and one missed shot – from 19 inside 50s for the quarter. Those six shots came from:
– A strong Harry McKay contested mark
– A brutal Marlion Pickett handball turnover leading to Charlie Curnow all by himself
– A Brodie Kemp set shot from 55 out on a tight angle missing everything
– A bouncing Orazio Fantasia shot from 50 out on the boundary
– A silly Noah Balta free against, leading to Blues out the back and the ball finding Matt Cottrell
– Another brutal handball turnover, this from Tim Taranto, leading to a Matt Owies snap
None of those are system breakdowns. It’s either good individual play from Blues or, to use the word again, brutal individual errors from Tigers.
Obviously Richmond won’t play like this all the time. But sometimes a team is forced to play to the moment and adapt. It almost worked against Carlton and perhaps provided some pointers for future Blues opponents.
A potential reason for Collingwood’s slow start to 2024
Two notes before getting properly into this section:
1) This is a focus on Collingwood’s offensive patterns and not defensive issues
2) This is more of a theory rather than a proper, confirmed, ‘see this is what’s happened’.
Now, having said that, in pre-season I noted the following:
“Can’t figure out if this is a *thing* or just an anomaly, but Collingwood’s kick to handball ratio was 2.02 (133k, 66h) in the first half. Last year they went at 1.42 for the season and only went above 1.81 in a single game (QF v Melbourne). It’s different”
While the kick to handball ratio specifically has been toned down to prior levels, no doubt that game was a sneak peek of Collingwood’s 2024 ball movement being much different to the previous two years.
This passage of play – although not fully captured by camera angles early on – is an illustration. A clean stoppage win results in a short chip and mark, stop, stop some more, long down the line.
At no time was there any dare, attempt to create movement, or look to open the ground up; three things we’ve become accustomed to seeing from Collingwood. Thankfully there was no camera on me seeing this unfold.
Scroll through my Collingwood post history and a common theme is how they attempt to create overloads around the ball through aggressive movement and go quickly from there.
Even allowing for Sydney’s fantastic structure – on both sides of the ball – the act of getting numbers to contests is entirely within Collingwood’s control.
But they haven’t been able to do that through the first two weeks, which is partly why they’ve conceded so heavily from turnover.
The natural question to the above is … why? What’s made Collingwood stray away from the offensive system which brought success and move the ball in a different style?
A natural reaction is to gravitate towards premiership hangover, a shorter pre-season, and all that low-hanging fruit.
However, there was a particular comment from McRae in his post-game press conference which stood out hugely. When asked about what was causing turnovers, and by inference, the diminished offensive system, his answer (bolded words my emphasis):
“I think it’s probably more trying to use the ball how the opposition are defending us. They (Pies) think that they’re (opposition) going to over slide and defend certain parts (of the ground) so there’s opportunities to switch the play a bit more.
“If you watch the ground, you see it. There’s players free everywhere on the open side. So you go, ‘let’s explore that’, but we’re not maybe there ready to execute at that level that we need to.
“Maybe looking for it, rushing it … casual’s probably not the right word, but searching for it.”
Perhaps this is me putting two and two together and guessing an answer of 46, but my read of that is the Pies knew 17 other teams were coming for them. A summer of studying the premiers and how to stop their style.
So they’ve tried to anticipate those adjustments and tweak their style to remain a step ahead. Their offence has been so different this season it can’t be a ‘just off their game’ explanation. Surely. Those bolded phrases:
‘How the opposition are defending us’ + ‘going to over slide and defend certain parts’ = Collingwood ready to move in a different direction to what opponents are expecting.
‘But we’re not maybe there ready to execute at that level’ + ‘searching for it’ = the plans aren’t easily achievable at this stage.
But shifting from something that’s been second nature for two years isn’t something accomplished with a click of the fingers. That’s why* we’ve seen disjointed ball movement, a team caught in two minds much of the time.
(*The usual disclaimer: In my opinion at least. This isn’t gospel)
The fascinating part is what Collingwood decide to do from here. Thursday against St Kilda presents an opponent capable of making the best offensive sides splutter, let alone one finding its way. Then it’s to the Gabba for the traditional Easter clash against Brisbane, potentially with both sides looking for win number one.
Do they continue down this path of tweaks and adjustments?
Maybe it’s about reverting back to what’s tried and true?
Does the looming reshuffle of players – Frampton and McInnes predicted to come in at either end – help simplify roles?
Or, I’ve spilled 750ish words and a couple of clips on a theory that’s completely wrong and they’re just playing poorly. It’s possible!