Our veteran quandary

[BazBoy]

I watched the Dorks & Dogs last night and one thing struck me ——Youth !!!

Dorks have built a young side and may well be the makings of a top side over the years

Thing is they planned this

Are we planning a future young side

[SLORT]

We're milking the cow one last time. There's cream in them there hills! And if it fails, oh well. We'll blame Wright and have a review and make the decision...that Pendle's and Sidey will need another year...or two.

[LaurieHolden]

And in another thread not too far away, we'll be moaning about our lack of experience.

We have not had the same draft hands and as a result have not had the talent nor the draft or trade capital to dislodge those players.
Which team as it exactly right? I'll tell you, none.
This is never simply about youth, it's about your Clubs DNA and the draft hand you earn / are dealt, sprinkled with a good dose of luck.

Hawthorn looks like we did in 2022 - fresh coach, fresh game plan. 2022 probably one of the most exciting years we've followed footy outside a flag year.
Hawthorn didn't look like World beaters when they were sitting 0-5 at the start of the season. The Dogs? Well, they lack the right experience.
Hawthorn still has 6 players (to our 10) who will be over 30 come 2025. 31 y/o Winguard has just retired.
They've had 4 top picks in as many years.
2017 they scored coups with late picks https://www.draftguru.com.au/clubs/hawthorn
And post every Club in the land bar Hawthorn overlooked Jai Newcombe, they jagged him in the 2020 mid-season draft.

Ask yourself, of the modern AFL era, which teams' history would you prefer?

• Games Since Last GF Win / Games Since FG Last Appearance
  St Kilda 1310 309
  Fitzroy 1078 1078
  Carlton 655 561
  Adelaide 593 151
  North Melbourne 564 564
  Essendon 540 515
  Brisbane Lions 476 23
  Port Adelaide 454 383
  Sydney 281 47
  Hawthorn 199 199
  Bulldogs 180 69
  WCE 132 132
  Richmond 91 91
  Melbourne 72 72
  Geelong 46 46
  Collingwood 23nd.

Can we at least evolve this tired old discussion. We've played with the same dare for 2 seasons and fell short via a tough draw and injury to miss the finals.
The 2013 draft bust via injury and the cap debacle stemming from the Beams, Treloar, Grundy years is as much to blame for anything, and we sacked a coach along the way.
Collingwood despite the debacle of the late McGuire years has held its own.
2 Premierships and 2 R/U in 4 years.

Over the next 3 years ~
We'll have a minimum of 2x F/S's & NGA prospects to come onto the list. (McGuane, Roccas, Fraser, Lonie + NGAs)
We'll trade in some players we haven't thought of.
We'll jag some players from the draft, nothing surer.

[lazzadesilva]

Again taking the easy way out Pendles and Sidey can play till they are 40 and Collingwood will still get value from them.
Our biggest problem is that the younger players haven’t come on as planned or hoped. We need to be super switched on to get as much young talent as our draft picks allow.
I have said previously that I’m all for the club to gain earlier picks through trading or letting a few underperforming youngsters go. If we don’t do something proactive now, we will be left behind by the clubs that do.

[Gerry Cooper]

I love how people blame our up and coming players for our list management problems.
However, the questions I want definitive answers for are as follows:
1) How will Pendlebury and Sidebottom get faster in 2025?
2) How will Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Crisp, and Howe get increased stamina so they can run out games in 2025?
3) How will Pendlebury, Sidebottom and our other veterans get improved reflexes in 2025?
4) How will Sidebottom reaching 350 games help us to win the 2025 premiership?
5) How will Pendlebury reaching the record for the most games played help us to win the 2025 premiership?
6) Why would youngsters play hard in the VFL if they have no chance of getting a game in the positions they normally play and train in?

If the answers to the above are negative then why are we still carrying all of them? Our older players were champions but are fading fast. Our list management is timid and conservative. There are times when clubs need to take some pain in order to improve. The current situation shows we are too scared to do that. In our patchy performance in 2024, there were some downright embarrassing performances, something we dont see very often from Collingwood even when we have been down the ladder. Unless the current situation is changed, we will see more of them and the chance for finals will be a distant dream. I reckon Wright's list planning was correct and we will rue these decisions in the years ahead.

[Presti35]

The best team will win the GF.

And maybe that will be us. Maybe it wont. But does having Sidebottom, Pendlebury and Howe hurt our chances of winning it in 2025?

[Gerry Cooper]

The best team will win the GF.

And maybe that will be us. Maybe it wont. But does having Sidebottom, Pendlebury and Howe hurt our chances of winning it in 2025?

I think there is a fair chance it will. Go back and watch all the games this year where we got run over or only just narrowly won after surrendering a lead. Compare the performance of our older players between the first half and second half in those games.

[neil]

And having significant injuries to multiple players had zero effect on our 2024 chances?
Many of our younger players second half of match were also poorer because of the lack of multiple preseasons

[SLORT]

Go back and watch all the games this year where we got run over or only just narrowly won after surrendering a lead. Compare the performance of our older players between the first half and second half in those games.

This is what has me scratching my head. Surely a club such as Collingwood, advanced, professional, cutting edge, having just won a flag, etc, would have the data that shows the endurance capacity of its players both old and young? I can see older players being injured more often, becoming slower and perhaps less flexible. But not being able to run out games? The average age of olympic marathon runners is 31.

So yeah, I don''t think that this would be related. If anything it is a symptom of the style of football we play. "Chaos-ball". Because we're one of the lowest sides for maintaining possession of the ball (also the lowest on overall marks) it means that we're often being forced to use a higher level of energy (pressure acts) to stay in the game. That's why the more skillful teams (Geelong, Hawthorn) put teams away with big winning margins, whilst our / Fly's style doesn't actually allow for this kind of result. It's a taxing style of play and will hold up well in finals. It's just also more likely to burn out players with injuries along the way and this is the risk with a team full of aging bodies.

[Gerry Cooper]

And having significant injuries to multiple players had zero effect on our 2024 chances?
Many of our younger players second half of match were also poorer because of the lack of multiple preseasons

Both of those points are also true. Put them altogether and you get Collingwood 2024. However aging playmakers who can't really run out out games at optimum performance left us highly vulnerable, particularly when opposition teams were aware of that and targeted them for extra pressure.

[Gerry Cooper]

This is what has me scratching my head.... Surely a club such as Collingwood, advanced, professional, cutting edge, having just won a flag, etc, would have the data that shows the endurance capacity of its players both old and young?
... If anything it is a symptom of the style of football we play...It's a taxing style of play and will hold up well in finals. It's just also more likely to burn out players with injuries along the way and this is the risk with a team full of aging bodies.

Also true which exposes our older players even more. They still do well in lower pressure games (ie Melbourne last round) but the higher pressure games where lightning reflexes are needed they get caught with the ball more often than not, particularly late in games, and often at important moments. One thing that did puzzle me all year was that we did little to manage these players week to week and in games. Given the high pressure, fast game style we play, I thought we would have seen more of that this year. There are a few ways it could have been done - using them as the tactical sub etc.. I think given injuries etc we were probably deprived of that luxury of flexibility, meaning our veterans had to play full games most of the time.

Also given the situation with Wright V McRae etc about the future of our veterans, it would seem there has been a lot of internal politics about that issue within the club. Maybe that affected some of the decision making on game day and selection to some unknown degree this year too.

[RudeBoy]

I've posted elsewhere that it might be a good idea if both Pendles and Sidey retire now, to enable us to promote players like Allan and DeMattia, who need regular senior games to really develop.
However......I can also understand the logic of keeping these veterans while they remain good enough, remembering that it was less than 12 months ago that the ageing Pendles took the control of the GF in the last quarter and old Sidey won us the flag with his 65 metre 'wonder goal'.
I guess I'm happy to keep them on our list, as long as they are used judiciously, often as the sub and intermittently rested, so they assist, rather than hinder the development of our next midfield group.

[qldmagpie67]

Rude I think that’s the point how we use them
If we as sub or giving them games off every 3/4 weeks (separately) then ok
Pendles has the game record within his sights but even if he played every game (23) and 3 finals he would fall short so does he go around again in 2026 or is he happy to be in 2nd place all times ?
Sidey has 332 games so needs 19 to get to 350. Barring injury (which he’s been good at avoiding throughout his career) he could possibly make it but it leaves little room for error if he gets an injury that costs him 2 weeks or so. Are we then obliged to play him no matter what each week to make sure we take injury out of the picture ?
If we land a couple mids which we seem to be targeting how does that impact the starting side roles for them ?
If I have 1 little criticism of McRae it’s he’s a romantic at heart. Meaning he will more than likely go with a veteran over a kid. This concerns me as I feel it hampered some of the development we could have got into some kids this season and going forward we need these younger players to be ready to go in 2026 or at least we need to know if there going to be any good
Time will tell but for me personally I would have retired one of Sidey or Pendles (keeping one for standard setting makes sense) and likely Howe or Cox as well (more likely Cox) to force us to fast track a couple of the kids

[Pies4shaw]

It’s simple, really - they get picked if they’re in our best 23. If they’re not in our best 23, they don’t. The records are their business, not the Club’s and must not be a consideration. Posters on here picked them as among our top 5 performers in the GB Medal and the coaches had them among our top 10 vote-getters. They are self-evidently still both very fine players - replacing them for the sake of replacing them would be silly.

There are plenty of open spots in our best 23 - if we happen to bring in a couple of midfield stars, there are lots of spots in the side with the “To Let” sign up. There are many second-rate younger players on our list and that’s our real problem. Pendles and Sidey might struggle to get a game in the Hawthorn midfield - but that’s not our midfield. After Nick and De Goey (when he is fit), there aren’t too many in there picking themselves. It would be nice if that changed in a hurry but that doesn’t, at present look likely.

The other thing that really cries out to be said here is that both are battle-hardened, give-everything players. There were plenty of mids playing in Finals over the last couple of days that you would look at and, on paper, prefer to our two elder statesmen. A lot of those players, though, choked dismally when it counted. And that’s the thing - the winning of AFL premierships has nothing whatsoever to do with racking up stats during the season. Our two have a tremendous record of standing up in those big games - you want to move them out in favour of the next Pendlebury or Sidebottom, not in favour of the next Ben Kennedy or Tim Broomhead.

[Pies2016]

Yep, if they’re good enough to hold their spot, then they play. Conversely, if a couple young blokes step up, then they replace them.

When it comes to our veterans, the club will have specific plans designed to keep them cherry ripe and not have them burn them out before the end of the season. Reduced training loads, modified programs, game day management are all tools available to preserve these guys in season. As long as a couple of young blokes step up and we bring in a couple plug and play trades, managing our vets game time should fall into place.
What we don’t want, is another season of excessive medium term injuries where the players who do remain available are then asked to do too much and go beyond their planned work loads. That’s when even the best fitness programs and work load management can go awry.