I've tried to avoid the media the last few days as they fall over themselves to congratulate the pies.

Good on them, but I don't want to hear about it.

Amongst the chaff, I managed to find this article which I think is quite interesting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/mick-malthouse-maps-out-a-new-era/story-e6frf9jf-1225933308954

Malthouse talks about their gameplan.

It confirmed a couple of things for me.

Firstly, Malthouse's gameplan (their defensive setup and blitz-style) was probably more influential in them winning the flag than their actual players.

I don't think their players are quite as good as the media would have us believe. Swan for instance, is good, but he is perfectly suited to this gamestyle and it is possible to clamp down on him, as was done in the GF and the majority of his touches were far from damaging.

The impending dominance of collingwood over the AFL competition is unlikely to happen.

Either the opposition will figure out how to beat their gameplan, or they will learn to implement it and possibly even more successfully.

Like "Clarko's Cluster" it will probably die a quick death as everyone adjusts.

Assembling a quality list with the talent to win a flag, is obviously only the first step.

Bailey must find a way to develop the players, implement a gameplan and find ways to evolve that gameplan.

No easy feat.

We are on the way, but there is so much work to do.

You also have to build a gameplan around the list you have.

Each player has a role(s) to play. i think we saw the start of that this year Round 5 Brisbane.

The forward line is still very much work in progress-who knows how it will shape up.

I would still like to see a big Forward down there to compliment the smaller guys in time.

But i will say, this is the first time it looks like we have the pieces to really make a great club on & off the field since the '50's.

Interesting that Malthouse talks openly about using past war generals theories....Always believed that Footy is a controlled war...thats the type of gameplan we need.

Starve the enemy, then they are finished, no matter what they try.

"Like taking candy from a baby"...Montgomery Burns. B)

Edited October 3, 201014 yr by why you little

The impending dominance of collingwood over the AFL competition is unlikely to happen.

Either the opposition will figure out how to beat their gameplan, or they will learn to implement it and possibly even more successfully.

Like "Clarko's Cluster" it will probably die a quick death as everyone adjusts.

Like Hawks, Collingwood won't be able to repeat because of new rules.

With the AFL implementing restrictions on rotations, they will no longer be able to sustain that high octane, high intensity game plan that smothers oppositions. Well done Mick Malthouse though for cashing in.

It will be interesting how Swan will be next year too. No doubt still a great player but maybe an edge might be taken off.

Which new rules hampered the Hawks' repeat efforts?

Which new rules hampered the Hawks' repeat efforts?

The rushed behind rule stopped them from resetting their play in defense. The amount of times Hawthorn rushed behinds especially in the 2008 gf was a pretty big part of their game plan.

Ah, I see.

I don't think this rule change makes that much of a difference though.

I don't think it was something they relied on heavily to implement their gameplan.

i think a key to the way we play, and why we were so competitive against the pies was that we we're prepared to switch the play quite often... the pies set their defensive structures up for a short and long kick down the line... by switching the ball out the back and down the other side of the ground, we're able to break down the press they set up...

Ah, I see.

I don't think this rule change makes that much of a difference though.

I don't think it was something they relied on heavily to implement their gameplan.

It helped them to concede fewer goals, relieve pressure on their now exposed defense & allowed them to build structured attacks from kick ins. Pretty big part of their game plan I would have thought.

Which new rules hampered the Hawks' repeat efforts?

The AFL also brought in a rule to stop the Hawks scragging players after a free kick was awarded and in particular blocking a player from regaining possession after dishing off a handball - stopping the old one-two handball chain.

Fair enough, they were significant changes.

I can only remember Hawthorn heavily implementing that deliberate rushed behind garbage in the Grand final, a tactic they pulled out that was a tool that helped them "steal" the flag that year. I thought those changes were maid mainly because of the hawks doing it in the one game only. May be wrong.

As for the new rule of limited interchanges, well the fact that every team is bound to this new rule, doesnt it disadvantage everyone pretty much the same? In any case its managable, from smarter rotations to extra fitness... this is where I suppose people like McDonald would suffer (god bless him)

I think the crux of the argument is does a supreme team beat a team of individual stars? I think Collingwood play as a supreme team with a few stars. Geelong played like a supreme team (granted they have more recognised stars) but when they played as a unit they were unbeatable.

Playing against a team that gels like a true team isn't like playing a football team, it is like playing against a living organism; which acts on instinct and moves as one almost as if controlled by the brain. Great teams with sound gameplans win most of the time. Which is why I fear if Collingwood can keep their current rollercoaster going there is nothing stopping them from being the next Geelong.

Flooding and zones mean nothing to good teams, Play on at all costs is god in this game these days, and a team which can play smart footy and knows one anothers moves will play smart, most importantly quick football.

Can we become a better team than C'wood? I am looking forward to seeing how we go away from the G next year. AAMI can be a good indication of how we're geling..

I can only remember Hawthorn heavily implementing that deliberate rushed behind garbage in the Grand final, a tactic they pulled out that was a tool that helped them "steal" the flag that year. I thought those changes were maid mainly because of the hawks doing it in the one game only. May be wrong.

As for the new rule of limited interchanges, well the fact that every team is bound to this new rule, doesnt it disadvantage everyone pretty much the same? In any case its managable, from smarter rotations to extra fitness... this is where I suppose people like McDonald would suffer (god bless him)

Yeah, but implementing the high intensity defensive pressure that Collingwood does, is draining and it would be even easier to "rope-a-dope" them.

Yeah, but implementing the high intensity defensive pressure that Collingwood does, is draining and it would be even easier to "rope-a-dope" them.

The Pies were the hunters this year and no doubt driven for flag success after being around the mark for a few years now . We did see that when they are the hunted as by us in our 2 meetings they are vunerable .

Be interesting to see if they can keep the intensity/disipline up with a Premiership medallion safely tucked away in their back pockets.

Hawthorn couldn't .

Edited October 3, 201014 yr by Fork 'em

Yeah, but implementing the high intensity defensive pressure that Collingwood does, is draining and it would be even easier to "rope-a-dope" them.

Could it be argued that this new rule is going to bring C'wood back to the pack then? Would you consider this change of rule detrimental to all clubs or could some prosper from it? I am unsure of the new rule- how many rotations have been limited?

Could it be argued that this new rule is going to bring C'wood back to the pack then? Would you consider this change of rule detrimental to all clubs or could some prosper from it? I am unsure of the new rule- how many rotations have been limited?

I'm not convinced that they are that far ahead of the pack.

They just had a good gameplan that other teams have not yet figured out how to effectively counter and they hit red hot form at the right time.

The new rules have not yet been finalised.

It is expected that it will consist of 3 on the bench and 1 substitute, instead of 4 on the bench as in the past.