Firstly a few things about last Saturday's game, because I didn't get a chance to comment on it at the time.
Plenty of people blamed the umpires for the loss last week. Simply not true. Yes there are some games where the umpiring can dramatically alter the outcome of a match (see: Queen's Birthday 2007), but Saturday afternoon at the MCG was not one of them. When Dane Swan is 25 metres out from goal directly in front with no direct pressure and opts to handball to a 50/50 contest you know your team does not deserve to win. I've seen three Collingwood teams this year. The A team (vs. Geelong, vs. Richmond, Anzac Day) that makes you believe we can win the flag, the B team (vs. the Dogs, Brisbane, St. Kilda) that either just wins or just loses and has you questioning the quality of the team, and the F team (Carlton matches, 2nd half vs. the Roos a fortnight ago, Saturday) that has you questioning your will to live. The fact that the F team has come out for the past six quarters is definitely a concern.
The Essendon match was borderline painful to watch. To see the Woods get within a kick twice, and then both times give up easy clearances and goals was horrible. A good team would have stuck the foot on the throat of the opposition after the Didak goal to open the third and the Medhurst goal to open the fourth. Collingwood failed both times, and the only reason they remain in the eight is due to the bizarre results of the same day (St. Kilda losing to West Coast!? That team is cursed). A few things have become clear in the loss...
-Dane Swan and Travis Cloke do not know how to kick a football. This has always been apparent, but it becomes magnified when the team is playing badly. They both suffer from Chad Fletcher syndrome - the ability to rack up countless possessions and use the ball poorly. Dane Swan gets as much ball as anyone in the team and is lauded in the media for his ability to run tirelessly and find the pill. People don't seem to realise that Dane Swan can not kick for goal and can not hit targets. His disposal by foot is shocking. Time and time again his kicks go over the heads of his targets. It's infuriating. Travis Cloke's problem is a little more publicised. It seemed as though he'd fixed his problem to a degree. 23 goals 14 entering Saturday was a respectable return. 3.3 on Saturday and the doubts are well and truly formed. 40 metres out on a slight angle and I have zero faith that Travis will nail that kick. Last year he was leaning back on his kick and his kicks, as the law of physics would state, were drifting wide right. This year the problem is less clear. He's still not kicking through the ball though. The difference between Travis Cloke being a good or bad kick is the difference between Collingwood finishing 3rd or 4th, or 7th or 8th.
-Shane O'Bree doesn't warrant a place on the field. He gets the ball and doesn't even look where he's kicking. He blazes away every single time. You can find players of his quality in the VFL with ease.
-The backline without James Clement has no direction or sense of purpose at all. We need a quarterback, a general. More on Heath later.
-Josh Fraser not playing is an absolute joke. If he's fit enough to play as a half forward flank you have to play him. People don't seem to realise this, but having watched Josh Fraser play for nine years it's become clear that he is better as a forward flanker than a ruckman. He's too soft to be a ruckman. He doesn't get any taps to advantage. Sure he burns them around the ground with skill and fitness, but wouldn't you rather have an intelligent tall forward that creates match-up nightmares for the opposition each week and will kick 45 goals for you in a season? It's pathetic.
-Paul Medhurst is officially a superstar. I don't say this lightly, but Saturday Paul Medhurst was the new Nathan Buckley. What made Buckley so special was that despite playing on a piss poor team for years he still made you want to watch the team just to see him play. Buckley was a rare player that gave you the sense that every time he got the ball he was going to do something special. On Saturday, Medhurst was that player. He shone brightly on a team swallowed in mediocrity, he gave you the sense that every time he got near the ball he would have an impact. Sure he's no Bucks, but he's been the best thing about 2008.
The big story out of the match though was Mick Malthouse. Is he past it? The media seems to think that he is, and given Collingwood's performances the past fortnight it's almost hard to speak to the contrary. Having seen Mick's work for nine years, in a nutshell, these are my basic thoughts on him: in terms of making his players play hard and fitness rotations few are better, in terms of matchups, structure and in-game adjustments he's one of the worst in the league. Collingwood's reputation as a tough grind-it-out team is purely Malthouse's work. You look at Dale Thomas and Leon Davis and don't think for a second they'd be great tacklers, but they are, and that's thanks to Malthouse. Things like that Mick is great with. In terms of football science though, I've come to one conclusion - he has no idea.
You go through his term at Collingwood and it's difficult to find any truly astute coaching decisions. Swinging Buckley forward in '06 was effective but spawned more so by Buckley's weary hamstrings than Malthouse's brain. I will admit that the way Malthouse swings guys like Medhurst and Didak (West Coast final last year, brilliance) into the midfield is very successful, but honestly something that all coaches should do. Malthouse makes some effective coaching decisions, but he makes plenty of bad ones too. Watching him try to turn Jason Cloke into a key forward for years was excruciating. Cloke in his day was the best spoiler in the competition and the best courageous mark guy. In 2002 he was probably the best loose defender in the league. Problem was he could never kick. What does Malthouse do? Tries to turn him into a goalkicking centre half forward. It was plain dumb, and it doesn't take a genius to see he's trying to do the same with Nick Maxwell. Sometimes Mick, just sometimes, maybe you should let a player excel at what they do best.
Malthouse's greatest strength and weakness lies in how much responsibility he gives to young players. Sometimes it works - see: Nathan Brown on Matthew Pavlich on debut this year, Travis Cloke on debut Anzac Day 2005, the various roles of Tyson Goldsack - but often it fails, and fails horribly. Aside from atrocious umpiring, the lone reason Collingwood lost on Queen's birthday last year was Malthouse's decision to put (and stick with) first gamer Danny Stanley on Russell Robertson. Robertson promptly kicked 7 goals and singlehandedly won the match for the Dees. Malthouse has twice placed youngsters on Brendon Fevola this year and been punished by Fevola's gamewinning efforts. I will never ever get over Malthouse's decision to play Tristen Walker in the 2003 grand final. Offenses like these are numerous.
They say that the coaching decision of 2008 was Terry Wallace's moving of Matthew Richardson to the wing. What is Matthew Richardson? He's a tall, super athletic, fit player with tremendous marking ability that struggles dearly around goal. So it makes sense to maximise this supreme athleticism of the bloke and stick him on the wing, relieving him of goalkicking pressures. Pity we can't do something like that. Oh. Wait. We can. Travis Cloke is built exactly in the mould of Matthew Richardson. Strong, athletic, fit, hands of Spiderman. And he can't kick for goal. Why not relieve Travis of his goalkicking duties and let him play the game without those pressures? Sure I am mindful of the ultimate desire to turn Travis into an elite forward, but what's the harm in sticking him on the wing and letting him drift towards goal? With the way Paul Medhurst is playing, we already have a gun forward. We'd need a tall forward to replace Travis, and Josh Fraser is the clear logical choice. This will never happen though. This year with Rocca, Reid, Rusling and Dawes all down I can appreciate the need to have Travis in the forward line. But next year with any of those guys up forward, there's no reason not to at least try Travis in the Richo role, barring an unforseen change in goalkicking mechanics. Oh yeah and Chris Tarrant wouldn't have been bad in that role either.
The most glaring and publicised error this year on Malthouse's behalf has obviously been the misuse of Heath Shaw. I don't care what the brilliance of the opposing coach is, when you have a player as talented as Heath Shaw you can't have him being taken out of games on a regular basis.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
I wanted to believe
The X-Files is my favourite TV show of all time. Nothing else even comes close for me. The way this show combined action, emotion, dry humour and intellectual stimulation on a weekly basis was fantastic. The fact that it sustained this high level of quality for 7 years is a credit to the actors, writers, and everyone involved with the show. When people think of The X-Files they immediately think of aliens, UFO's and government conspiracies. True fans know better. True fans know that The X-Files was all about the relationship between two people. I'm not sure there's ever been a better small screen duo than Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. I've never seen two characters and actors have such good chemistry, and sustain it for so long. The little-hyped X-Files movie sequel, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, is not about shady government employees or little green men - it's about Mulder and Scully.
When I first heard of an X-Files film sequel officially being produced I had a mixed reaction. On one hand the series had ended so poorly that the chances of producing a decent film were very slim. Ultimately though, it was a chance to see Mulder and Scully in action again, and perhaps a chance for the writers and creators of the show to redeem themselves for the god-awful final season. The result, what we are left with, is an absolute mess of a film that bounces freely from pretentious and plodding to intelligent and poignant.
You can divide I Want to Believe into two sections: the narrative being told, and the relationship between Mulder and Scully. The latter succeeds in many ways, but the former is so poorly pieced together it's borderline offensive. The plot is contrived, as most X-Files plots are. After the FBI and the government tried for years to destroy Fox Mulder, a young agent is given free reign to bring immunity to Mulder's murder charges over a hunch. Let me remind you that Mulder was on trial for killing a government employee and was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death. Following this he broke out of prison and was last seen on the run in New Mexico. Now some young female agent has used her wand of justice to wipe away those charges over a hunch. Amanda Peet's character claimed that Mulder could provide insight on a case of the supernormal. He had no connection to the case, no relationship with anyone involved, and the FBI chooses to give him immunity from the death penalty because he could help out. It's just too ridiculous to believe. It's lazy storytelling. Unfortunately this is a recurring factor in the film.
Things like this I could forgive, after all director and series creator Chris Carter wanted this film to stand apart from the mythology of the series. He would be better suited to spending his time on plot points concerning the movie instead of delving into explaining what happened in the past. Unfortunately the plot is an absolute joke. It's dull, uninteresting and tedious. I find it offensive that after allegedly planning the film since the end of the series in 2002 the best the writers could come up with is 'black market body parts'. It's really quite incredible how pathetic this is. The story never takes off, never gains our interest and never makes us believe we should care about these characters.
Character development in the film is possibly its major offense. Amanda Peet and Xzibit play the 4 and 5, and are totally uncharismatic. Paper cut-out characters if ever there were. The major non-Mulder or Scully role goes to Billy Connoly and his portrayal of a psychic pedophile priest. He's the wild card in the film but the script and performance make his character nothing special at all. You never feel sympathy for him, are never afraid of him, and honestly never care about him. We know nothing of his past, nothing of his connection with the later-to-be-revealed token skinhead baddy, and basically nothing about him at all. He's poorly developed and I could just never buy into his character.
Before I get into the themes of the film and other stuff, I just want to quickly look at the whole 'black market body parts' plot. Could they have come up with a less interesting idea? Yes it's kind of creepy, yes the shot of the red fingernails on the attached arm is pretty cool, but that's about it. We never get a backstory to explain the motives behind the villains, and there's nothing to make these characters or the story especially chilling or even notable. We have token scary looking Russians as our bad guys, it's terrible. I will say though, that despite its convoluted nature, the final scenes surrounding this plot are effective. Albeit in a weird way.
A film doesn't necessarily have to have a stellar plot if it is driven by themes that reach the viewer. I Want to Believe has an interesting theme of 'not giving up' that plays a huge part in the film's end game. The idea isn't quite 'sprung' on us towards the end, but it almost feels like it. For non-viewers of the show the theme will be absolutely meaningless and almost feel like a cheat. For regular viewers of the show though, it should make its connection. In The X-Files Mulder and Scully rarely won, and sometimes weren't even able to settle for minor victories. Yet for nine years they persisted in their quest for the truth. They never gave in. This resiliency was always a key motif in the show, and I like how its been utilised in the film. What I'm not so sure about is how it ties in with the religious aspect of the film.
The X-Files never shied away from religion. Scully's faith was one of the major elements of the show. After the show had jumped the shark religion became even more prominent in the mythology. This wasn't good, it disrespected what had transpired in the previous seven years. Religion in The X-Files went from being an interesting topic in the early years to an overpowering and ultimately unhealthy force by the end. The case is no different here as religion runs rampant. We have the priest (the pedophile priest nonetheless), the Catholic hospital, the argument of medicine vs. faith, and Scully's ever-lingering necklace to remind us of the presence of a higher power. Unfortunately it never really clicks, as we're never entirely certain of what the writers are trying to convey about religion. Is God talking to Scully? Is the Father paying for his past sins through his 'gift'? We never find out.
Chris Carter was obviously aiming for a dark and atmospheric film. The film is set in rural West Virginia and the snowy landscape reminds us of Fargo. The cinematography is dark and shadowy - I can't remember a scene with even a ray of sunshine. Unfortunately opting for darkness and atmospherics doesn't quite pan out for Carter. The line between chilling, dark and atmospheric and dull, plodding and plain boring is a thin one, and Carter finds himself time and time again on the wrong side of it.
The general consensus about the first X-Files movie is that it was good but not great. Say what you want about it, but you can't deny that it didn't feel like a feature film. There were chase scenes, explosions and spaceships. That's not the case here. There isn't a single explosion or shot fired. The one chase scene is pedestrian, although the climax is fantastic and genuinely thrilling. I Want to Believe feels like an extended episode of the TV show, not a feature film - let alone an action blockbuster.
In spite of all these failures the movie does seem to work occasionally and for one sole reason (no prizes for guessing which) - Mulder and Scully. Duchovny and Anderson are on top of their game, taking us back to the halcyon days of The X-Files. Their relationship is the only thing on the screen worth watching. Incredibly, I Want to Believe is more so a romantic drama about a middle aged couple struggling with their occupations than anything else. Even more incredibly, it works. The relationship between Mulder and Scully is complex and deep. Not surprisingly the sexual tension between the two, the show's greatest calling card in its heyday, is non-existent (and honestly had been ever since the release of the first film). Thankfully this is replaced with more common themes of love, and what real couples have to deal with on a regular basis. As we did for nine long years, we find ourselves caring about these characters once again. The acting and writing for both characters is fantastic. The scene in the hospital between the two following the death of a key character, where they discuss their differences and the 'darkness' that seems to engulf them is as good as anything that transpired over the nine years. It's classic X-Files. For one scene it felt like we were back.
It's interesting to note that this is very much Scully's film, not Mulder's. The X-Files was seemingly always about Mulder's quest and Scully was merely the viewer's connection into Mulder's world. As the series progressed we gradually came to understand that Mulder and Scully had an equal amount of importance. Still though, it was always Mulder's quest for the truth, Mulder's quest to bring down the government, and Mulder's quest to find his sister. It seemed like Scully was just along for the ride a lot of the time. I Want to Believe is Scully's film from the get-go. Mulder's story is pretty clear-cut. He's been in isolation, he's back and he has a real hunger to solve the case. Scully's assertion that he's doing it to 'find' his sister is ludicrous, and totally out of place. He's doing it because he's just got the itch. Scully on the other hand is anything but clear cut. She's moved on from her life as an FBI agent, she's come to the realisation that she's a doctor. She's also accepting, and knocking back Mulder in the process, that she can't deal with the darkness that comes with investigating murders and everything else that comes with it. She wants to move on. She also has to deal with a clash of faith vs. science, and a young boy's life that hangs in the balance. The film's final scene is all about Scully, and it's effective. This is her story, she's the most developed character in the film, and the scenes that detail her struggles are the best in the film.
The performances in the film aren't anything special. Duchovny and Anderson are right at home and shake off the rust pretty quickly. Anderson in particular delivers a very strong performance. Aside from them though the cast is disappointing. One of The X-Files' greatest strengths was its ability to extract fantastic performances from guest actors. Peter Boyle in "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose", Doug Hutchison in "Squeeze", Robert Wisden in "Pusher", Carrie Hamilton in "Monday", Tom Noonan in "Paper Hearts", the list goes on. There isn't a single interesting character outside of Mulder and Scully to be found in the film. Billy Connoly surprisingly lacks charisma, Amanda Peet is wooden and Xzibit is plain annoying. Mitch Pileggi's cameo is nice but doesn't really have any impact.
Even the script seems dull. One of the show's major attractions was its sharp, witty and intelligent scripts that were pumped out of a weekly basis. Sharp, witty and intelligent are three adjectives that don't even enter consideration in describing this film. Bland, mundane and unimaginative seem more apt. There's about two good one-liners in the film and Mulder's trademark dry wit goes AWOL for a large portion of the film. The script for Billy Connoly's character is painfully dull, and Amanda Peet and Xzibit have nothing to work with.
The film has bust written all over it. Fans of the film will be disappointed, newcomers will find it tedious and dull, and the target audience will be seeing The Dark Knight instead - and for good reason. Last week I went to a 5:15 session of The Dark Knight and there wasn't an empty seat to be found. Yesterday at a 6:40 session of I Want to Believe there weren't 15 people there. The film has been panned in the press and all signs point to it being a financial bust. The one saving grace is that its small budget of $33 million means that it will be hard for the film not to at least make a profit.
Given its poor quality, critical bashing and likely financial failure this is more than likely the last time we will ever see Mulder and Scully. I say that with a degree of sadness, but also of acceptance. I wanted to believe that Chris Carter and the team behind The X-Files could give us a film that could approach the quality of the show in its prime. They couldn't, and you have to question exactly how much they tried. The movie is a failure and a colossal disappointment, but in some regards I'm glad it happened. I Want to Believe shows glimpses of why the show was so popular and such a hit in the 90s, although they come sparingly. In one scene with Mulder and Scully that comes around the halfway mark it feels like we're back. It's only about two minutes but for me I was back, sucked into Mulder and Scully's web of conspiracy, paranoia and quest for the truth once again. And for that I am thankful.
When I first heard of an X-Files film sequel officially being produced I had a mixed reaction. On one hand the series had ended so poorly that the chances of producing a decent film were very slim. Ultimately though, it was a chance to see Mulder and Scully in action again, and perhaps a chance for the writers and creators of the show to redeem themselves for the god-awful final season. The result, what we are left with, is an absolute mess of a film that bounces freely from pretentious and plodding to intelligent and poignant.
You can divide I Want to Believe into two sections: the narrative being told, and the relationship between Mulder and Scully. The latter succeeds in many ways, but the former is so poorly pieced together it's borderline offensive. The plot is contrived, as most X-Files plots are. After the FBI and the government tried for years to destroy Fox Mulder, a young agent is given free reign to bring immunity to Mulder's murder charges over a hunch. Let me remind you that Mulder was on trial for killing a government employee and was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death. Following this he broke out of prison and was last seen on the run in New Mexico. Now some young female agent has used her wand of justice to wipe away those charges over a hunch. Amanda Peet's character claimed that Mulder could provide insight on a case of the supernormal. He had no connection to the case, no relationship with anyone involved, and the FBI chooses to give him immunity from the death penalty because he could help out. It's just too ridiculous to believe. It's lazy storytelling. Unfortunately this is a recurring factor in the film.
Things like this I could forgive, after all director and series creator Chris Carter wanted this film to stand apart from the mythology of the series. He would be better suited to spending his time on plot points concerning the movie instead of delving into explaining what happened in the past. Unfortunately the plot is an absolute joke. It's dull, uninteresting and tedious. I find it offensive that after allegedly planning the film since the end of the series in 2002 the best the writers could come up with is 'black market body parts'. It's really quite incredible how pathetic this is. The story never takes off, never gains our interest and never makes us believe we should care about these characters.
Character development in the film is possibly its major offense. Amanda Peet and Xzibit play the 4 and 5, and are totally uncharismatic. Paper cut-out characters if ever there were. The major non-Mulder or Scully role goes to Billy Connoly and his portrayal of a psychic pedophile priest. He's the wild card in the film but the script and performance make his character nothing special at all. You never feel sympathy for him, are never afraid of him, and honestly never care about him. We know nothing of his past, nothing of his connection with the later-to-be-revealed token skinhead baddy, and basically nothing about him at all. He's poorly developed and I could just never buy into his character.
Before I get into the themes of the film and other stuff, I just want to quickly look at the whole 'black market body parts' plot. Could they have come up with a less interesting idea? Yes it's kind of creepy, yes the shot of the red fingernails on the attached arm is pretty cool, but that's about it. We never get a backstory to explain the motives behind the villains, and there's nothing to make these characters or the story especially chilling or even notable. We have token scary looking Russians as our bad guys, it's terrible. I will say though, that despite its convoluted nature, the final scenes surrounding this plot are effective. Albeit in a weird way.
A film doesn't necessarily have to have a stellar plot if it is driven by themes that reach the viewer. I Want to Believe has an interesting theme of 'not giving up' that plays a huge part in the film's end game. The idea isn't quite 'sprung' on us towards the end, but it almost feels like it. For non-viewers of the show the theme will be absolutely meaningless and almost feel like a cheat. For regular viewers of the show though, it should make its connection. In The X-Files Mulder and Scully rarely won, and sometimes weren't even able to settle for minor victories. Yet for nine years they persisted in their quest for the truth. They never gave in. This resiliency was always a key motif in the show, and I like how its been utilised in the film. What I'm not so sure about is how it ties in with the religious aspect of the film.
The X-Files never shied away from religion. Scully's faith was one of the major elements of the show. After the show had jumped the shark religion became even more prominent in the mythology. This wasn't good, it disrespected what had transpired in the previous seven years. Religion in The X-Files went from being an interesting topic in the early years to an overpowering and ultimately unhealthy force by the end. The case is no different here as religion runs rampant. We have the priest (the pedophile priest nonetheless), the Catholic hospital, the argument of medicine vs. faith, and Scully's ever-lingering necklace to remind us of the presence of a higher power. Unfortunately it never really clicks, as we're never entirely certain of what the writers are trying to convey about religion. Is God talking to Scully? Is the Father paying for his past sins through his 'gift'? We never find out.
Chris Carter was obviously aiming for a dark and atmospheric film. The film is set in rural West Virginia and the snowy landscape reminds us of Fargo. The cinematography is dark and shadowy - I can't remember a scene with even a ray of sunshine. Unfortunately opting for darkness and atmospherics doesn't quite pan out for Carter. The line between chilling, dark and atmospheric and dull, plodding and plain boring is a thin one, and Carter finds himself time and time again on the wrong side of it.
The general consensus about the first X-Files movie is that it was good but not great. Say what you want about it, but you can't deny that it didn't feel like a feature film. There were chase scenes, explosions and spaceships. That's not the case here. There isn't a single explosion or shot fired. The one chase scene is pedestrian, although the climax is fantastic and genuinely thrilling. I Want to Believe feels like an extended episode of the TV show, not a feature film - let alone an action blockbuster.
In spite of all these failures the movie does seem to work occasionally and for one sole reason (no prizes for guessing which) - Mulder and Scully. Duchovny and Anderson are on top of their game, taking us back to the halcyon days of The X-Files. Their relationship is the only thing on the screen worth watching. Incredibly, I Want to Believe is more so a romantic drama about a middle aged couple struggling with their occupations than anything else. Even more incredibly, it works. The relationship between Mulder and Scully is complex and deep. Not surprisingly the sexual tension between the two, the show's greatest calling card in its heyday, is non-existent (and honestly had been ever since the release of the first film). Thankfully this is replaced with more common themes of love, and what real couples have to deal with on a regular basis. As we did for nine long years, we find ourselves caring about these characters once again. The acting and writing for both characters is fantastic. The scene in the hospital between the two following the death of a key character, where they discuss their differences and the 'darkness' that seems to engulf them is as good as anything that transpired over the nine years. It's classic X-Files. For one scene it felt like we were back.
It's interesting to note that this is very much Scully's film, not Mulder's. The X-Files was seemingly always about Mulder's quest and Scully was merely the viewer's connection into Mulder's world. As the series progressed we gradually came to understand that Mulder and Scully had an equal amount of importance. Still though, it was always Mulder's quest for the truth, Mulder's quest to bring down the government, and Mulder's quest to find his sister. It seemed like Scully was just along for the ride a lot of the time. I Want to Believe is Scully's film from the get-go. Mulder's story is pretty clear-cut. He's been in isolation, he's back and he has a real hunger to solve the case. Scully's assertion that he's doing it to 'find' his sister is ludicrous, and totally out of place. He's doing it because he's just got the itch. Scully on the other hand is anything but clear cut. She's moved on from her life as an FBI agent, she's come to the realisation that she's a doctor. She's also accepting, and knocking back Mulder in the process, that she can't deal with the darkness that comes with investigating murders and everything else that comes with it. She wants to move on. She also has to deal with a clash of faith vs. science, and a young boy's life that hangs in the balance. The film's final scene is all about Scully, and it's effective. This is her story, she's the most developed character in the film, and the scenes that detail her struggles are the best in the film.
The performances in the film aren't anything special. Duchovny and Anderson are right at home and shake off the rust pretty quickly. Anderson in particular delivers a very strong performance. Aside from them though the cast is disappointing. One of The X-Files' greatest strengths was its ability to extract fantastic performances from guest actors. Peter Boyle in "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose", Doug Hutchison in "Squeeze", Robert Wisden in "Pusher", Carrie Hamilton in "Monday", Tom Noonan in "Paper Hearts", the list goes on. There isn't a single interesting character outside of Mulder and Scully to be found in the film. Billy Connoly surprisingly lacks charisma, Amanda Peet is wooden and Xzibit is plain annoying. Mitch Pileggi's cameo is nice but doesn't really have any impact.
Even the script seems dull. One of the show's major attractions was its sharp, witty and intelligent scripts that were pumped out of a weekly basis. Sharp, witty and intelligent are three adjectives that don't even enter consideration in describing this film. Bland, mundane and unimaginative seem more apt. There's about two good one-liners in the film and Mulder's trademark dry wit goes AWOL for a large portion of the film. The script for Billy Connoly's character is painfully dull, and Amanda Peet and Xzibit have nothing to work with.
The film has bust written all over it. Fans of the film will be disappointed, newcomers will find it tedious and dull, and the target audience will be seeing The Dark Knight instead - and for good reason. Last week I went to a 5:15 session of The Dark Knight and there wasn't an empty seat to be found. Yesterday at a 6:40 session of I Want to Believe there weren't 15 people there. The film has been panned in the press and all signs point to it being a financial bust. The one saving grace is that its small budget of $33 million means that it will be hard for the film not to at least make a profit.
Given its poor quality, critical bashing and likely financial failure this is more than likely the last time we will ever see Mulder and Scully. I say that with a degree of sadness, but also of acceptance. I wanted to believe that Chris Carter and the team behind The X-Files could give us a film that could approach the quality of the show in its prime. They couldn't, and you have to question exactly how much they tried. The movie is a failure and a colossal disappointment, but in some regards I'm glad it happened. I Want to Believe shows glimpses of why the show was so popular and such a hit in the 90s, although they come sparingly. In one scene with Mulder and Scully that comes around the halfway mark it feels like we're back. It's only about two minutes but for me I was back, sucked into Mulder and Scully's web of conspiracy, paranoia and quest for the truth once again. And for that I am thankful.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The four (2008)
In direct relationship to my previous post, I thought I'd have a look at the four teams that have a genuine shot at the flag this season. This season is interesting, as unlike last year where it appeared there were just two elite teams (Geelong and the now fallen Eagles) that had legitimate flag aspirations, this year we have three - and the drop-off between the top three and the fourth appears to be significant... or not (bear with me).
The three I'm talking about occupy the top three spots on the ladder, and will almost certainly finish the home and away season there. Geelong, the Western Bulldogs and Hawthorn have been the three best teams this season and the ladder reflects that. The third place Hawks currently have a 2-and-a-half lead over the Swans, as well as a slight percentage edge, so the top three now are most likely here to stay. Geelong, following their ultra-impressive handling of the Dogs Saturday have a six point buffer as well as a huge percentage edge over their nearest rivals - they'll finish top again, no worries. The fact is that Geelong will finish top and play fourth, and the Hawks and Dogs will play off meaning that finishing second opposed to third is absolutely meaningless.
Today I want to look at two things, 1 - of these three which is most equipped to win the premiership, and 2 - which is the team most likely to challenge them?
On the first point. If this weekend demonstrated anything it's that the Cats are still the class of the competition. They play such an attacking take-the-game-on style of footy, it's intoxicating. They don't just look good though, they're the most effective team in the comp. They've got the best player in the league, and the best midfield. Having Ablett, Bartel, Ling, Corey, Kelly, Selwood gives Geelong six absolute gun midfielders - no other team can claim to have that. The defense, and the rebound from defense is close to the best and the best in the competition. I still maintain that Matthew Scarlett is the team's most important player. The forward line is underrated too. They've got a legitimate tall key forward in Cam Mooney, and have a number of capable forwards. Steve Johnson and Matty Stokes I'm looking at you.
The defending champs aren't without weaknesses though. Firstly, the team seems to be incredibly injury prone. You can't really hold that against them, but it will hurt them in the future. Secondly, the forward line isn't that good. The Cats are in many ways just a more daring West Coast Eagles 2005-06 unit with a bit more depth. They constant between these teams is the lack of a superstar forward. Cam Mooney is a step-up over the Big Q, but a superstar he is not. A quick athletic defense can stop the Cat's forwards. Thirdly, Josh Hunt can be targeted. He's not that bad a player, but he gets beaten regularly, and he makes poor decisions with the ball. Lastly, and most importantly, these Cats have shown that when pushed they can break. Collingwood has broken them twice already. They went missing against Fremantle earlier this year. They have flaws. They're a fantastic team yes, but it's easier to find flaws in this team than it is to find in the Essendon and Brisbane dynasties. They can be beaten.
Of the Hawks and the Bulldogs which team is most likely to take the Cat's crown? Neither made a very strong case this weekend, but based strictly on potential you can't go past Hawthorn. If this team can get its act together, they have the highest ceiling of any team in the league, including Geelong. The defence on paper is mediocre, but the system they have in place is more than effective - although it has holes as the Bulldogs have exploited. The midfield is superb when its up and going. Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Chance Bateman, Brad Sewell and a healthy Shane Crawford is a fantastic starting five in the midfield. The special thing about the Hawks midfield is that they have all these guys like Osbourne, Lewis, Ladson and Young that you couldn't really identify by name, but they all bring something to the table. The forward line is obviously the greatest strength for the Hawks. The huge 1-2 duo of Franklin and Roughhead, and then the best 3-4 combo in the league of Williams and Rioli.
What's holding back the Hawks? Firstly, youth. This team doesn't have enough experience to realistically expect to win a premiership - yet. They don't have the self-belief to win tough matches. They imploded on field against the Kangaroos in last year's final, and have shown an inability to win hard grind it out games. They struggle against tough, four-quarter teams like Sydney, North, and Adelaide (yes I realise that Hawthorn have won their last three encounters with Adelaide, but given the vast disparity in talent the fact that the margin in two of the three matches combined has been seven points is not flattering for the Hawks). Come September I suspect the Hawks will be exposed. Talent and flare can't replace hard work and self-belief.
That said I don't have that much faith in the Bulldogs either. Yes I know they can run the ball really well, and that they've got a gun midfield. Let's talk about that gun midfield. Cooney, Griffin, Ray is hands down the most exciting young midfield in the comp. They really symbolise the Dogs, fast, determined and with a lot of swagger. The midfield is exciting, but people don't talk enough about the stellar Bulldogs defense. A gaping weakness last year, with Brian Lake holding up the store, the Dogs defense has been one of the most improved units of the season. The forward line is arguably the Dogs' greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The Dogs have a number of guys, Johnson, Murphy, Giansiricusa, that can create something out of nothing. It's the experienced answer to Davis, Didak, Medhurst, Thomas.
The fact is though, that even in this day and age, it's still too difficult to win a premiership without a semblance of a tall forward. Kangaroos - Carey, Essendon - Lloyd, Brisbane - Lynch + Brown, Port Adelaide - Tredrea in his prime, Sydney - Hall, O'Loughlin, West Coast - Lynch + Hunter, Geelong - Mooney. All those teams had quality key forwards. The exception is West Coast, but their midfield was so good that the feed into the forward so numerous that they scored enough goals to win match ups. The Eagles won a flag not through quality of the receivers, but by quantity of the delivery. The Dogs midfield isn't at that level.
The fact is that right now the Hawks and Dogs just don't seem to have enough to topple the Cats - and honestly neither team seems all that close. The Dogs had a huge chance to get one up on the Cats last weekend in the absence of Ablett and Ling but failed. In September Geelong will be even more formidable. It's hard to know exactly where the Hawks are at right now, especially after the loss to the Saints this weekend, but given their list, system and potential they are a more dangerous threat to the Cats. So who does the fourth spot in the four belong to? Let's break it down.
We can immediately eliminate Essendon, Carlton and Richmond. Each team will only get better but contention, and finals are just about out of the question. Adelaide have been too heavily hit by injuries and I suspect they'll be the unlucky team to miss out on the eight. Brisbane are too inconsistent to claim to be a contender, and the Roos play hard but they're simply not good enough. That leaves us with the Swans, Pies and Saints to choose from. I know that the Swans are always 'around', but you'd have to think that the Swans capacity to contend for another premiership is limited. They've found themselves on the wrong side of the scoreline against all of Geelong, Hawthorn, the Dogs and Collingwood. They're not going to win the flag.
Who out of Collingwood and St. Kilda is more likely to play off in a Grand Final? As much as I hate to say it, it may very well be the Saints. Now by no means am I giving up on Collingwood. I strongly believe Collingwood will be a team no one wants to play in finals, given their tackling and pressuring ability. The reason the Pies aren't a top four team this year is they same reason they weren't last year (at least after the home and away season) - they lose too often to bad teams. Last year the Pies lost to the two bottom teams Melbourne and Richmond, lost by 93 points to Brisbane who didn't even make the finals, and struggled in all four matches against Essendon and Carlton (despite going 4-0, yes I do like to bring this up). The defining thing for me about Collingwood's 2007 regular season is that they lost badly at home to Brisbane and Adelaide, yet beat each comfortably on the road. Same thing goes this year. We've beaten Geelong (BY 86 FREAKIN POINTS!), Sydney, St. Kilda and Adelaide, yet lost four times to Carlton and the Kangaroos. Against those two teams Collingwood should expect to go 3-1. That's the expectation. Had that been the case they'd be in strong contention for second spot, instead they're going to have to grind it out for fifth.
It's hard to believe but these facts present Collingwood's strongest argument for success in finals. Last year Collingwood turned around mediocre form and switched it on in the finals. This is a unit built for finals, with the tackling, pressure and the general 'teamness' of the club. Why don't I think Collingwood will be strong contenders for the flag? Two reasons. One, the Pies struggle badly against Hawthorn and the Bulldogs. The Dogs are simply too fast for the Pies in the midfield. That's why they've handled Collingwood in their past three encounters. On the other hand Hawthorn's forwards are simply too tall, too strong and too good for Collingwood's inexperienced backline. Roughhead and Franklin combined for like 11 goals against Collingwood earlier this year. What's to stop them from doing that again? The other reason is that basically Collingwood were a better team last year.
It's hard to believe such a young 'up and coming' team can regress, but it has. The losses of Buckley and Clement have been huge, especially in the case of the latter. Presti's injury has left a void of experience in defense. The young guns improving? Travis Cloke has regressed in a big way, Thomas and Pendlebury have merely held steady, and Tyson Goldsack's form was so poor he got dropped. Veterans who were superb last year have regressed understandably. Scott Burns has tackled the captaincy admirably, but his age is showing. Tarkyn Lockeyer has been nowhere near the terrific player he was last year. Heath Shaw has taken a step back from 'star' to 'solid player'. Josh Fraser has been non-existent, and Nick Maxwell is proving that he may very well be overrated. The only real improvements from last year have come from Paul Medhurst (need I say more), Harry O'Brien (rock solid), Sharrod Wellingham (a fantastic player, trust me), Nathan Brown (good raw talent, should develop) and Chris Bryan (thriving on increased playing time). For me the shining hope for this season was Cam Wood, and honestly he's been a bust so far. It's Guy Richards all over again. This Collingwood team has a surplus of young talent, and the capacity to be a finals team for years to come but barring the pick-up of Ben Cousins, Daniel Kerr, Jonathan Brown or another established gun I can't see them winning the flag.
St. Kilda on the other hand I can. This is bizarre, because I'm basically this entire analysis on one and a half quarters from Saturday night. But the thing is, for four years the Saints have been so hyped, and Saturday night in the third quarter against the Hawks they finally got it all together. The football Collingwood played against Geelong this year was phenomenal. It was intense, and amazing. But that seemed all about determination and heart. They were like the scrappy ferocious boxer that refused to lose. St. Kilda in the third term against the Hawks were a perfectly oiled machine. Winning the taps, Dal Santo and Hayes dominating the midfield, Riewoldt sublime in attack. They were a machine. They were Ali.
Could that quarter be the turning point not only for the season, but for the history of the club? Perhaps, but with the Saints you can never be sure. For four years the Saints have always had the list to win the premiership, but on Saturday night they showed the heart to compliment it. The thing is though, that the Saints have six infinitely winnable games ahead and could quite conceivably win them all and finish fourth. Given the draw the Saints are a lock to make the finals, even if they revert to their old lifeless ways. Nick Riewoldt seems recovered and never looked better than Saturday night. Nick Dal Santo is a class act, and completely dominated that match. Lenny Hayes is the most underrated player in the league. He's an admirable competitor, an absolute gun, the heart and soul of his team and one of the 30 best players in the league. Max Hudghton cops way too much flack, he's still capable of holding down a defense. Sam Fisher and Jason Gram are stars, and provide run off the back flank. Brendon Goddard is steady as she goes. Leigh Montagna, the Clarkes, King, Blake (amazing third term) and Schneider all contribute. Justin Koschitzke when healthy (as he is now) is arguably the best aerial mark in the competition, and an elite player. Robert Harvey still has something to give, and no one can question his heart. Luke Ball is vastly improved and has fixed up his kicking woes somewhat. And guys like Armitage, Geary and Clinton Jones give this team youth and flare. They can win it all, and come September should be feared. Because you never know when they're going to rip out a third term like Saturday night's.
The three I'm talking about occupy the top three spots on the ladder, and will almost certainly finish the home and away season there. Geelong, the Western Bulldogs and Hawthorn have been the three best teams this season and the ladder reflects that. The third place Hawks currently have a 2-and-a-half lead over the Swans, as well as a slight percentage edge, so the top three now are most likely here to stay. Geelong, following their ultra-impressive handling of the Dogs Saturday have a six point buffer as well as a huge percentage edge over their nearest rivals - they'll finish top again, no worries. The fact is that Geelong will finish top and play fourth, and the Hawks and Dogs will play off meaning that finishing second opposed to third is absolutely meaningless.
Today I want to look at two things, 1 - of these three which is most equipped to win the premiership, and 2 - which is the team most likely to challenge them?
On the first point. If this weekend demonstrated anything it's that the Cats are still the class of the competition. They play such an attacking take-the-game-on style of footy, it's intoxicating. They don't just look good though, they're the most effective team in the comp. They've got the best player in the league, and the best midfield. Having Ablett, Bartel, Ling, Corey, Kelly, Selwood gives Geelong six absolute gun midfielders - no other team can claim to have that. The defense, and the rebound from defense is close to the best and the best in the competition. I still maintain that Matthew Scarlett is the team's most important player. The forward line is underrated too. They've got a legitimate tall key forward in Cam Mooney, and have a number of capable forwards. Steve Johnson and Matty Stokes I'm looking at you.
The defending champs aren't without weaknesses though. Firstly, the team seems to be incredibly injury prone. You can't really hold that against them, but it will hurt them in the future. Secondly, the forward line isn't that good. The Cats are in many ways just a more daring West Coast Eagles 2005-06 unit with a bit more depth. They constant between these teams is the lack of a superstar forward. Cam Mooney is a step-up over the Big Q, but a superstar he is not. A quick athletic defense can stop the Cat's forwards. Thirdly, Josh Hunt can be targeted. He's not that bad a player, but he gets beaten regularly, and he makes poor decisions with the ball. Lastly, and most importantly, these Cats have shown that when pushed they can break. Collingwood has broken them twice already. They went missing against Fremantle earlier this year. They have flaws. They're a fantastic team yes, but it's easier to find flaws in this team than it is to find in the Essendon and Brisbane dynasties. They can be beaten.
Of the Hawks and the Bulldogs which team is most likely to take the Cat's crown? Neither made a very strong case this weekend, but based strictly on potential you can't go past Hawthorn. If this team can get its act together, they have the highest ceiling of any team in the league, including Geelong. The defence on paper is mediocre, but the system they have in place is more than effective - although it has holes as the Bulldogs have exploited. The midfield is superb when its up and going. Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Chance Bateman, Brad Sewell and a healthy Shane Crawford is a fantastic starting five in the midfield. The special thing about the Hawks midfield is that they have all these guys like Osbourne, Lewis, Ladson and Young that you couldn't really identify by name, but they all bring something to the table. The forward line is obviously the greatest strength for the Hawks. The huge 1-2 duo of Franklin and Roughhead, and then the best 3-4 combo in the league of Williams and Rioli.
What's holding back the Hawks? Firstly, youth. This team doesn't have enough experience to realistically expect to win a premiership - yet. They don't have the self-belief to win tough matches. They imploded on field against the Kangaroos in last year's final, and have shown an inability to win hard grind it out games. They struggle against tough, four-quarter teams like Sydney, North, and Adelaide (yes I realise that Hawthorn have won their last three encounters with Adelaide, but given the vast disparity in talent the fact that the margin in two of the three matches combined has been seven points is not flattering for the Hawks). Come September I suspect the Hawks will be exposed. Talent and flare can't replace hard work and self-belief.
That said I don't have that much faith in the Bulldogs either. Yes I know they can run the ball really well, and that they've got a gun midfield. Let's talk about that gun midfield. Cooney, Griffin, Ray is hands down the most exciting young midfield in the comp. They really symbolise the Dogs, fast, determined and with a lot of swagger. The midfield is exciting, but people don't talk enough about the stellar Bulldogs defense. A gaping weakness last year, with Brian Lake holding up the store, the Dogs defense has been one of the most improved units of the season. The forward line is arguably the Dogs' greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The Dogs have a number of guys, Johnson, Murphy, Giansiricusa, that can create something out of nothing. It's the experienced answer to Davis, Didak, Medhurst, Thomas.
The fact is though, that even in this day and age, it's still too difficult to win a premiership without a semblance of a tall forward. Kangaroos - Carey, Essendon - Lloyd, Brisbane - Lynch + Brown, Port Adelaide - Tredrea in his prime, Sydney - Hall, O'Loughlin, West Coast - Lynch + Hunter, Geelong - Mooney. All those teams had quality key forwards. The exception is West Coast, but their midfield was so good that the feed into the forward so numerous that they scored enough goals to win match ups. The Eagles won a flag not through quality of the receivers, but by quantity of the delivery. The Dogs midfield isn't at that level.
The fact is that right now the Hawks and Dogs just don't seem to have enough to topple the Cats - and honestly neither team seems all that close. The Dogs had a huge chance to get one up on the Cats last weekend in the absence of Ablett and Ling but failed. In September Geelong will be even more formidable. It's hard to know exactly where the Hawks are at right now, especially after the loss to the Saints this weekend, but given their list, system and potential they are a more dangerous threat to the Cats. So who does the fourth spot in the four belong to? Let's break it down.
We can immediately eliminate Essendon, Carlton and Richmond. Each team will only get better but contention, and finals are just about out of the question. Adelaide have been too heavily hit by injuries and I suspect they'll be the unlucky team to miss out on the eight. Brisbane are too inconsistent to claim to be a contender, and the Roos play hard but they're simply not good enough. That leaves us with the Swans, Pies and Saints to choose from. I know that the Swans are always 'around', but you'd have to think that the Swans capacity to contend for another premiership is limited. They've found themselves on the wrong side of the scoreline against all of Geelong, Hawthorn, the Dogs and Collingwood. They're not going to win the flag.
Who out of Collingwood and St. Kilda is more likely to play off in a Grand Final? As much as I hate to say it, it may very well be the Saints. Now by no means am I giving up on Collingwood. I strongly believe Collingwood will be a team no one wants to play in finals, given their tackling and pressuring ability. The reason the Pies aren't a top four team this year is they same reason they weren't last year (at least after the home and away season) - they lose too often to bad teams. Last year the Pies lost to the two bottom teams Melbourne and Richmond, lost by 93 points to Brisbane who didn't even make the finals, and struggled in all four matches against Essendon and Carlton (despite going 4-0, yes I do like to bring this up). The defining thing for me about Collingwood's 2007 regular season is that they lost badly at home to Brisbane and Adelaide, yet beat each comfortably on the road. Same thing goes this year. We've beaten Geelong (BY 86 FREAKIN POINTS!), Sydney, St. Kilda and Adelaide, yet lost four times to Carlton and the Kangaroos. Against those two teams Collingwood should expect to go 3-1. That's the expectation. Had that been the case they'd be in strong contention for second spot, instead they're going to have to grind it out for fifth.
It's hard to believe but these facts present Collingwood's strongest argument for success in finals. Last year Collingwood turned around mediocre form and switched it on in the finals. This is a unit built for finals, with the tackling, pressure and the general 'teamness' of the club. Why don't I think Collingwood will be strong contenders for the flag? Two reasons. One, the Pies struggle badly against Hawthorn and the Bulldogs. The Dogs are simply too fast for the Pies in the midfield. That's why they've handled Collingwood in their past three encounters. On the other hand Hawthorn's forwards are simply too tall, too strong and too good for Collingwood's inexperienced backline. Roughhead and Franklin combined for like 11 goals against Collingwood earlier this year. What's to stop them from doing that again? The other reason is that basically Collingwood were a better team last year.
It's hard to believe such a young 'up and coming' team can regress, but it has. The losses of Buckley and Clement have been huge, especially in the case of the latter. Presti's injury has left a void of experience in defense. The young guns improving? Travis Cloke has regressed in a big way, Thomas and Pendlebury have merely held steady, and Tyson Goldsack's form was so poor he got dropped. Veterans who were superb last year have regressed understandably. Scott Burns has tackled the captaincy admirably, but his age is showing. Tarkyn Lockeyer has been nowhere near the terrific player he was last year. Heath Shaw has taken a step back from 'star' to 'solid player'. Josh Fraser has been non-existent, and Nick Maxwell is proving that he may very well be overrated. The only real improvements from last year have come from Paul Medhurst (need I say more), Harry O'Brien (rock solid), Sharrod Wellingham (a fantastic player, trust me), Nathan Brown (good raw talent, should develop) and Chris Bryan (thriving on increased playing time). For me the shining hope for this season was Cam Wood, and honestly he's been a bust so far. It's Guy Richards all over again. This Collingwood team has a surplus of young talent, and the capacity to be a finals team for years to come but barring the pick-up of Ben Cousins, Daniel Kerr, Jonathan Brown or another established gun I can't see them winning the flag.
St. Kilda on the other hand I can. This is bizarre, because I'm basically this entire analysis on one and a half quarters from Saturday night. But the thing is, for four years the Saints have been so hyped, and Saturday night in the third quarter against the Hawks they finally got it all together. The football Collingwood played against Geelong this year was phenomenal. It was intense, and amazing. But that seemed all about determination and heart. They were like the scrappy ferocious boxer that refused to lose. St. Kilda in the third term against the Hawks were a perfectly oiled machine. Winning the taps, Dal Santo and Hayes dominating the midfield, Riewoldt sublime in attack. They were a machine. They were Ali.
Could that quarter be the turning point not only for the season, but for the history of the club? Perhaps, but with the Saints you can never be sure. For four years the Saints have always had the list to win the premiership, but on Saturday night they showed the heart to compliment it. The thing is though, that the Saints have six infinitely winnable games ahead and could quite conceivably win them all and finish fourth. Given the draw the Saints are a lock to make the finals, even if they revert to their old lifeless ways. Nick Riewoldt seems recovered and never looked better than Saturday night. Nick Dal Santo is a class act, and completely dominated that match. Lenny Hayes is the most underrated player in the league. He's an admirable competitor, an absolute gun, the heart and soul of his team and one of the 30 best players in the league. Max Hudghton cops way too much flack, he's still capable of holding down a defense. Sam Fisher and Jason Gram are stars, and provide run off the back flank. Brendon Goddard is steady as she goes. Leigh Montagna, the Clarkes, King, Blake (amazing third term) and Schneider all contribute. Justin Koschitzke when healthy (as he is now) is arguably the best aerial mark in the competition, and an elite player. Robert Harvey still has something to give, and no one can question his heart. Luke Ball is vastly improved and has fixed up his kicking woes somewhat. And guys like Armitage, Geary and Clinton Jones give this team youth and flare. They can win it all, and come September should be feared. Because you never know when they're going to rip out a third term like Saturday night's.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The four (2007)
Every season I like to believe that their are four teams with genuine premiership aspirations. These are usually the top four teams at the end of the regular season, but circumstances (an easy draw, one slip-up) might permit a weaker team to finish one spot ahead of a stronger team. So I'm not talking about the top four teams in terms of ladder position, but the top four teams in terms of quality, potential and produced play. For instance, the Kangaroos were the 4th placed team at the end of the home and away season last year, but they fared 3-7 against the other teams in the top eight (4-9 after finals). They were the product of an easy draw, and in reality they were probably the 7th best team in the competition that year.
It's not only unlikely, but almost statistically unheard of for a team to finish in the bottom half of the eight and win the premiership. Adelaide of '98 finished 5th and won the flag, the only example of a team in the bottom half of the eight doing so. In fact, dating back to 1969 the premier has emerged from the top three every year other than the '92 Eagles, '97 Crows and the aforementioned '98 Adelaide unit. My berated point is this - teams simply don't pop out of nowhere in finals to take premiership glory. They need to establish consistent high-quality in the regular season, teams simply don't turn it on come September.
Last year the four teams that had legitimate premiership aspirations were Geelong, Collingwood, West Coast and Port Adelaide - probably in that order too. Port Adelaide were in way over their head that season, and in retrospect their success was probably the worse thing possible for that team at the time. They succeeded through heart, a duo of brothers, and a ridiculous penchant for stealing games in the clutch. They won games against Hawthorn and Geelong away from home in the final ten seconds, and escaped with a three point win against injury-battered West Coast in the preliminary final. In essence they got lucky. West Coast seemed to be on the flipside of Port Adelaide's luck. It's amazing how many bad breaks this team caught. They came up against an inspired Essendon unit in Round 22 which prevented them from getting the percentage points they required to finish second and earn a home final. Daniel Kerr found himself injured watching the season end from the sideline, Ben Cousins tore his hamstring effectively ending his season, and Chris Judd played the second half of the season at about 30% before reaching a point where he simply could not play anymore. They lost their two finals by three points and in extra time. I'll always hate the football Gods for denying us the chance to see Geelong fight with a fit Judd, Cousins, Kerr led West Coast unit in a Grand Final. I maintain to this day that the Eagles would have won that match - but we'll never know.
Injury woes and inconsistent play (the thumping at the hands of Port in Round 15, home losses to St. Kilda and Brisbane, the inability to put away Essendon in Round 22) have me believe that the Eagles were really a shadow of the team they were in 05-06. It wasn't necessarily their own fault, but mitigating circumstances just never really allowed that team to gel. They looked like they were coming together after the return of Cousins, finishing the season on a 6-1 tear, but injuries played their part. Funnily enough, Collingwood, the team that finished 6th ended up being the second best team last year. The Pies were strong across the board and played a style suited to the intensity of finals. We dominated Sydney, and then showed tremendous steel to beat West Coast. Of course everyone says that beating West Coast without Judd, Cousins and Kerr is like winning a Major without Tiger Woods, but this was still a huge win. Here's my reasoning. Judd had been injured even before Cousins returned, an injured Judd had become part of the 2007 West Coast Eagles identity. The Pies were missing Josh Fraser, who for Collingwood is as important if not more so than either Cousins or Kerr is for West Coast. The main thing is though that Collingwood came into Perth and won on West Coast's home turf. We went into their house, and we earned our ticket back home to a preliminary final. Then we made Geelong sweat like no other team had.
Obviously the other team in the four last year was the dominant Cats. Tomorrow I'll look at the teams in this year's four.
It's not only unlikely, but almost statistically unheard of for a team to finish in the bottom half of the eight and win the premiership. Adelaide of '98 finished 5th and won the flag, the only example of a team in the bottom half of the eight doing so. In fact, dating back to 1969 the premier has emerged from the top three every year other than the '92 Eagles, '97 Crows and the aforementioned '98 Adelaide unit. My berated point is this - teams simply don't pop out of nowhere in finals to take premiership glory. They need to establish consistent high-quality in the regular season, teams simply don't turn it on come September.
Last year the four teams that had legitimate premiership aspirations were Geelong, Collingwood, West Coast and Port Adelaide - probably in that order too. Port Adelaide were in way over their head that season, and in retrospect their success was probably the worse thing possible for that team at the time. They succeeded through heart, a duo of brothers, and a ridiculous penchant for stealing games in the clutch. They won games against Hawthorn and Geelong away from home in the final ten seconds, and escaped with a three point win against injury-battered West Coast in the preliminary final. In essence they got lucky. West Coast seemed to be on the flipside of Port Adelaide's luck. It's amazing how many bad breaks this team caught. They came up against an inspired Essendon unit in Round 22 which prevented them from getting the percentage points they required to finish second and earn a home final. Daniel Kerr found himself injured watching the season end from the sideline, Ben Cousins tore his hamstring effectively ending his season, and Chris Judd played the second half of the season at about 30% before reaching a point where he simply could not play anymore. They lost their two finals by three points and in extra time. I'll always hate the football Gods for denying us the chance to see Geelong fight with a fit Judd, Cousins, Kerr led West Coast unit in a Grand Final. I maintain to this day that the Eagles would have won that match - but we'll never know.
Injury woes and inconsistent play (the thumping at the hands of Port in Round 15, home losses to St. Kilda and Brisbane, the inability to put away Essendon in Round 22) have me believe that the Eagles were really a shadow of the team they were in 05-06. It wasn't necessarily their own fault, but mitigating circumstances just never really allowed that team to gel. They looked like they were coming together after the return of Cousins, finishing the season on a 6-1 tear, but injuries played their part. Funnily enough, Collingwood, the team that finished 6th ended up being the second best team last year. The Pies were strong across the board and played a style suited to the intensity of finals. We dominated Sydney, and then showed tremendous steel to beat West Coast. Of course everyone says that beating West Coast without Judd, Cousins and Kerr is like winning a Major without Tiger Woods, but this was still a huge win. Here's my reasoning. Judd had been injured even before Cousins returned, an injured Judd had become part of the 2007 West Coast Eagles identity. The Pies were missing Josh Fraser, who for Collingwood is as important if not more so than either Cousins or Kerr is for West Coast. The main thing is though that Collingwood came into Perth and won on West Coast's home turf. We went into their house, and we earned our ticket back home to a preliminary final. Then we made Geelong sweat like no other team had.
Obviously the other team in the four last year was the dominant Cats. Tomorrow I'll look at the teams in this year's four.
Saying goodbye
I'm too depressed to write that much about last night's loss. All I'll say is this; Collingwood lost for three very simple reasons. Firstly, the accountability in the midfield in the third term was atrocious. One passage on the right half flank in the third term had Daniel Wells get a handball receive, slip, lose control of the ball, stand up, gather himself, and deliver to a teammate who then hit a target inside 50. All of this, and not one Collingwood player was even in the vicinity. Disgusting. Secondly, Malthouse's foolish ploy to have players play on no matter what the cost. This was stupid for three reasons. First, the Kangaroos really aren't that good a team. This might seem invalid after last night, but Collingwood are a better team than North and shouldn't have to be drastically changing their gameplan to accomodate the weaker side. Second, it had Collingwood playing outside their comfort zone. They're simply not used to playing on like that, and unless your Geelong playing on at all costs will not necessarily produce free flowing football. Thirdly on that point, Collingwood disregarded common sense in playing on. They did it every single time. Obviously you can't do that because times will come when there just isn't room to play on. Well those times came frequently last night but it didn't stop Collingwood. Nick Maxwell was a major offender. The Pies were playing on and running straight into opposition players, it was turnovers galore for the Roos. Finally, and not to sound like a broken record, but... the ruck. Collingwood once again, as they have been for the past nine years, were raped in the ruck. Drew Petrie completely dominated them. They were smashed in the clearances. Cam Wood right now is not the answer. This must be addressed more seriously in the offseason. In all seriousness, Collingwood would benefit more as a team throwing money at Jamie Charman than they would Jonathan Brown. After last night, that is clear.
OK, that's all I have to say about last night. Moving on. I'm going to do something a bit different today and write about a film I saw. Hopefully this will become an ongoing thing, but I can't hold myself to that. Anyway, the film I watched last night was The Dark Knight. I really can't remember the last time a film was hyped so much. It's probably an Australian thing, for obvious reasons, but in my lifetime I can't remember a film being 'must-see' as much as this one. Probably the first Star Wars film, but that might be it. The hype is there for many reasons; Batman, the big Hollywood budget, the quality of the first film, the rave reviews, and of course Heath Ledger. The film basically appeals to everyone. The average movie goer will see it because of the buzz around it, deadheads will see it for the action and big budget, film lovers will see it because of the reviews, males will see it for the awesome factor, and females will see it for the Ledger factor. What makes this film so special is that it should satisfy every one of those audiences, except maybe the females (Ledger's no Casanova in the movie).
Let's talk about Ledger. When it's all said and done, the main reason this film will be remembered is because it included the penultimate performance (and final entire performance) of the now deceased Heath Ledger. Adding to the tragedy of his death is that the young actor's career was just taking off. His previous two performances (in Brokeback Mountain and Candy) were critically his most raved about. He was now an Academy Award nominated actor, and great things looked to be ahead. It's easy to call a guy like Ledger overrated because of his good looks and his home country roots, but the fact is he wasn't overrated at all. He was a versatile actor, and most importantly one that commanded the screen. On screen he had a presence that not many actors can claim to have. Pre-release talk would have you believe that The Dark Knight was to be his finest role, Oscar-worthy even. Having seen the film I can say that the hype is not at all far from the truth. Ledger's performance is an excellent one, and without it The Dark Knight would have been half the film it ended up being.
Ledger completely re-invents himself in the film, as unrecognisable as Charlize Theron was in Monster. He embodies evil, and is far and away the most captivating character in the film. I believe that there are two types of 'great' movie villains; the intellectual that provides reasoning to inhumane acts, Orson Welles in The Third Man, and those that are simply downright evil, Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. Ledger's Joker falls into the second category, and in terms of effectiveness features prominently at the top of that list. Ledger also brings a degree of physicality to The Joker, never seen before. Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson both portrayed the Joker as a crazed maniac, but never one that would fare that well in a fist-fight. That's not the case here. Ledger is a big bloke, and he makes The Joker a physical force. He kills a mob-guy with his bare hands, turns the table on a police officer, and holds his own against Batman in a fight. He's intelligent, but he's got the raw physical strength to match. In short, Ledger's Joker is a character with no redeeming features, he simply has one goal: chaos.
The Dark Knight is essentially about three men; Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and The Joker. It's an interesting trio dynamic, one reminiscent of Platoon. Wayne is Willem Dafoe, representing good, The Joker is Tom Berenger, representing evil, and Harvey Dent is Charlie Sheen, stuck in the middle. Here we have three interesting characters, and three fine performances, but the film doesn't really have a focus on any one character in particular, and that leads to a slightly disjointed experience. You would expect a Batman film to be mainly about Batman, but in The Dark Knight Batman is probably the third most important character. I'm actually a little disappointed that Christopher Nolan didn't take the Jack Nicholson root and make the film mainly about The Joker. Such was the quality of Ledger's performance, an opportunity may have been missed. Remarkably the main character in the film might in fact be Aaron Eckhart's (underrated actor, Thank You For Smoking was awesome) Harvey Dent.
The action scenes in the film are high quality, as you would expect from a film with a budget of $180 million. Strangely enough the best action scene is the very first one, a memorable bank robbery, which immediately puts on display The Joker's cunning and cold-heartedness. There are a number of other successful action sequences, but the heart of the film and where it is most effective comes with with its key themes and dealing with morality.
The Dark Knight is a film all about the basic decency and integrity of humanity. The Joker plays a number of Saw-like games with the City of Gotham, albeit on a less gruesome scale, and the ethical repercussions are interesting to look at. My personal highlight of the film comes when the Joker rigs two boats full of people with explosives and gives each boat a detonator for the other boat, telling each boat to blow up the other before they are blown up themselves. This is the ultimate ethical decision in the film, and a truly uplifting moment comes from the resulting decision of a prison inmate. The Joker manipulates Gotham into a state of chaos and anarchy, portraying the worst of what humans are capable of. But moments like this remind us of the goodness and the potential to do what is fundamentally right that we all possess. They give us hope.
All the performances in the film are fantastic. Ledger is the highlight, as we have already touched on, broadcasting the evil of the Joker through his chilling voice, facial mannerisms and unpredictability. Christian Bale has a much more limited role this time around, compared to Batman Begins, but he embraces it. He's icy cool and commands the screen - he's hands down the best Batman we've ever seen. The wildcard is Aaron Eckhart who doesn't seem to get any attention ever. He's a mixed bag as Harvey Dent, the most complex character in the film. As the heroic Harvey Dent, protector of the city, he's perfect, exuding confidence, charisma, fearlessness and a steely resolve. The same can not be said when his character turns nasty. Whether it was the script or the performance, or both, I can't be sure, but I simply didn't buy Dent's hasty transformation. And that in reality is the film's only shortcoming. Maggie Gyllenhaal is good as the love interest of Bruce and Harvey, a big uprade over Katie Holmes. Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are brilliant as Commissioner Gordon, Butler Albert and Lucious Fox. Has there ever been as good a minor supporting trio as those three?
The Dark Knight works on so many levels. As an action and popcorn film it provides satisfying scenes of adrenaline and big bangs. As a character study of three different men, it works, albeit to a lesser degree. But what makes the film so great is its study of people, how they react, how to control them, and the decisions that they make. Every single character in the film at one stage or another makes an ethical decision, and more often than not they face the consequences. The film shows that the good guy doesn't always win, and that making the right decision doesn't always come without a cost. From Heath Ledger's magnificent performance, to the presence of Bale's Batman, to the wonderfully dark cinematography, to the tragic yet magnificent manipulation of Harvey Dent at the hands of The Joker, The Dark Knight is hands down the greatest superhero movie of all time. And that, is perhaps as close as we will get to a fitting tribute to one of the greatest young actors of his generation. R. I. P. Heath
OK, that's all I have to say about last night. Moving on. I'm going to do something a bit different today and write about a film I saw. Hopefully this will become an ongoing thing, but I can't hold myself to that. Anyway, the film I watched last night was The Dark Knight. I really can't remember the last time a film was hyped so much. It's probably an Australian thing, for obvious reasons, but in my lifetime I can't remember a film being 'must-see' as much as this one. Probably the first Star Wars film, but that might be it. The hype is there for many reasons; Batman, the big Hollywood budget, the quality of the first film, the rave reviews, and of course Heath Ledger. The film basically appeals to everyone. The average movie goer will see it because of the buzz around it, deadheads will see it for the action and big budget, film lovers will see it because of the reviews, males will see it for the awesome factor, and females will see it for the Ledger factor. What makes this film so special is that it should satisfy every one of those audiences, except maybe the females (Ledger's no Casanova in the movie).
Let's talk about Ledger. When it's all said and done, the main reason this film will be remembered is because it included the penultimate performance (and final entire performance) of the now deceased Heath Ledger. Adding to the tragedy of his death is that the young actor's career was just taking off. His previous two performances (in Brokeback Mountain and Candy) were critically his most raved about. He was now an Academy Award nominated actor, and great things looked to be ahead. It's easy to call a guy like Ledger overrated because of his good looks and his home country roots, but the fact is he wasn't overrated at all. He was a versatile actor, and most importantly one that commanded the screen. On screen he had a presence that not many actors can claim to have. Pre-release talk would have you believe that The Dark Knight was to be his finest role, Oscar-worthy even. Having seen the film I can say that the hype is not at all far from the truth. Ledger's performance is an excellent one, and without it The Dark Knight would have been half the film it ended up being.
Ledger completely re-invents himself in the film, as unrecognisable as Charlize Theron was in Monster. He embodies evil, and is far and away the most captivating character in the film. I believe that there are two types of 'great' movie villains; the intellectual that provides reasoning to inhumane acts, Orson Welles in The Third Man, and those that are simply downright evil, Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. Ledger's Joker falls into the second category, and in terms of effectiveness features prominently at the top of that list. Ledger also brings a degree of physicality to The Joker, never seen before. Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson both portrayed the Joker as a crazed maniac, but never one that would fare that well in a fist-fight. That's not the case here. Ledger is a big bloke, and he makes The Joker a physical force. He kills a mob-guy with his bare hands, turns the table on a police officer, and holds his own against Batman in a fight. He's intelligent, but he's got the raw physical strength to match. In short, Ledger's Joker is a character with no redeeming features, he simply has one goal: chaos.
The Dark Knight is essentially about three men; Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and The Joker. It's an interesting trio dynamic, one reminiscent of Platoon. Wayne is Willem Dafoe, representing good, The Joker is Tom Berenger, representing evil, and Harvey Dent is Charlie Sheen, stuck in the middle. Here we have three interesting characters, and three fine performances, but the film doesn't really have a focus on any one character in particular, and that leads to a slightly disjointed experience. You would expect a Batman film to be mainly about Batman, but in The Dark Knight Batman is probably the third most important character. I'm actually a little disappointed that Christopher Nolan didn't take the Jack Nicholson root and make the film mainly about The Joker. Such was the quality of Ledger's performance, an opportunity may have been missed. Remarkably the main character in the film might in fact be Aaron Eckhart's (underrated actor, Thank You For Smoking was awesome) Harvey Dent.
The action scenes in the film are high quality, as you would expect from a film with a budget of $180 million. Strangely enough the best action scene is the very first one, a memorable bank robbery, which immediately puts on display The Joker's cunning and cold-heartedness. There are a number of other successful action sequences, but the heart of the film and where it is most effective comes with with its key themes and dealing with morality.
The Dark Knight is a film all about the basic decency and integrity of humanity. The Joker plays a number of Saw-like games with the City of Gotham, albeit on a less gruesome scale, and the ethical repercussions are interesting to look at. My personal highlight of the film comes when the Joker rigs two boats full of people with explosives and gives each boat a detonator for the other boat, telling each boat to blow up the other before they are blown up themselves. This is the ultimate ethical decision in the film, and a truly uplifting moment comes from the resulting decision of a prison inmate. The Joker manipulates Gotham into a state of chaos and anarchy, portraying the worst of what humans are capable of. But moments like this remind us of the goodness and the potential to do what is fundamentally right that we all possess. They give us hope.
All the performances in the film are fantastic. Ledger is the highlight, as we have already touched on, broadcasting the evil of the Joker through his chilling voice, facial mannerisms and unpredictability. Christian Bale has a much more limited role this time around, compared to Batman Begins, but he embraces it. He's icy cool and commands the screen - he's hands down the best Batman we've ever seen. The wildcard is Aaron Eckhart who doesn't seem to get any attention ever. He's a mixed bag as Harvey Dent, the most complex character in the film. As the heroic Harvey Dent, protector of the city, he's perfect, exuding confidence, charisma, fearlessness and a steely resolve. The same can not be said when his character turns nasty. Whether it was the script or the performance, or both, I can't be sure, but I simply didn't buy Dent's hasty transformation. And that in reality is the film's only shortcoming. Maggie Gyllenhaal is good as the love interest of Bruce and Harvey, a big uprade over Katie Holmes. Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are brilliant as Commissioner Gordon, Butler Albert and Lucious Fox. Has there ever been as good a minor supporting trio as those three?
The Dark Knight works on so many levels. As an action and popcorn film it provides satisfying scenes of adrenaline and big bangs. As a character study of three different men, it works, albeit to a lesser degree. But what makes the film so great is its study of people, how they react, how to control them, and the decisions that they make. Every single character in the film at one stage or another makes an ethical decision, and more often than not they face the consequences. The film shows that the good guy doesn't always win, and that making the right decision doesn't always come without a cost. From Heath Ledger's magnificent performance, to the presence of Bale's Batman, to the wonderfully dark cinematography, to the tragic yet magnificent manipulation of Harvey Dent at the hands of The Joker, The Dark Knight is hands down the greatest superhero movie of all time. And that, is perhaps as close as we will get to a fitting tribute to one of the greatest young actors of his generation. R. I. P. Heath
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Sloppy but effective
Collingwood haven't won a match cleanly since smashing West Coast in Round 10, and that didn't change today. It was ugly, but you'll take a 32 point injury-free win against a top 6 team any day of the week. That said, Adelaide being a top 6 team only reflects the fact that they've had an easy draw. Against teams in the top 8 the Crows have gone a dismal 0-6. They've lost to West Coast by 50 points, struggled to a 5 point home win against lowly Essendon, and last week were embarrassed by Geelong on their home turf. They're yet to have a statement victory, and their season is now dependent on the health of injured Brett Burton and Jason Porplyzia.
Collingwood pulled their Jekyll/Hyde act today, playing like rubbish for one-and-a-half quarters (and I mean rubbish) turning the ball over, lacking accountability and committing basic skill errors. Not surprisingly they found themselves in a 46-18 hole midway through the second term. At that stage they turned it around. Nothing in particular triggered the turnaround, they simply snapped out of it. Possibly the mark of a good team. The second half was vintage 2008 Collingwood (can I say that?), and they basically pressured Adelaide into submission. The Pies pressured the Crows, laying tackles and winning the pill in contested situations. They turned the tables in the clearances, and when Didak goaled in the first minute of the final term you sensed the game was just about over.
Notes about the game;
-Rhyce Shaw played a ripper game, aside from two blunders in front of goal (1 metre out from goal he managed to kick the ball 40 metres in the wrong direction. Amazing). 32 possessions, 9 marks, a nice snapped goal, and dash off the flanks and wings - Shaw would have been best on ground if not for..
-How good is Paul Medhurst!? I mean really, he's come from inconsistent fringe goal-sneak to deserving All-Australian and (yep, I'll say it) the best player on a potential top 4 team. 19 possessions, 10 marks and 5 goals (could have easily been 7 or 8) makes Medhurst a pretty easy choice for player of the game today. The real story though is how good Medhurst has been this year. The transformation began in last year's finals campaign, and we're reaping the results right now. 7th in the league in goals (42.20, accurate too), 5th in marks and 15th in kicks. His averages of 16 disposals, 8 marks and 3 goals a game are unreal. It's not uncommon from players to make the leap from fringe player to weekly contributor, but Medhurst has jumped from fringe player to superstar - in less than 12 months.
-Very quiet games from Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury. Thomas has been the one to come under scrutiny this year, but he's satisfied my expectations this year. Pendlebury hasn't.
-John Anthony looks like he could be a handy role player. Two calmly slotted goals.
-Harry O'Brien was fantastic, and a sweet launch and mark over Johncock. This kid continues to impress.
-Marty Clarke was brilliant today, 21 possies, 8 marks and a terrific goal to put the icing on the cake.
-Adelaide didn't kick a meaningful goal in the second half.
-After Scott Thompson singlehandedly ripped apart Richmond a few weeks ago I was ready to declare him one of the 10-12 best players in the league. Not so much now. Just 13 kicks in the past two weeks, and today despite racking up 36 disposals he had a limited impact on the game. Judd, Kerr, Goodes, Ablett, Bartel, Harvey, Black - 36 disposals is almost an automatic 3 votes. Thompson isn't on that level yet by any means.
Today was ugly, it was sloppy, but it was effective. It's a solid win that with percentage effectively puts Collingwood two games clear of 7th spot and an away final. Next week represents the third consecutive if-you-want-to-have-a-real-crack-at-September-you-need-to-win-this-match, currently the Pies are 2 for 2 in that category, so here's hoping they'll be able to go 3 for 3 with a win over the Roos next Friday night.
Collingwood pulled their Jekyll/Hyde act today, playing like rubbish for one-and-a-half quarters (and I mean rubbish) turning the ball over, lacking accountability and committing basic skill errors. Not surprisingly they found themselves in a 46-18 hole midway through the second term. At that stage they turned it around. Nothing in particular triggered the turnaround, they simply snapped out of it. Possibly the mark of a good team. The second half was vintage 2008 Collingwood (can I say that?), and they basically pressured Adelaide into submission. The Pies pressured the Crows, laying tackles and winning the pill in contested situations. They turned the tables in the clearances, and when Didak goaled in the first minute of the final term you sensed the game was just about over.
Notes about the game;
-Rhyce Shaw played a ripper game, aside from two blunders in front of goal (1 metre out from goal he managed to kick the ball 40 metres in the wrong direction. Amazing). 32 possessions, 9 marks, a nice snapped goal, and dash off the flanks and wings - Shaw would have been best on ground if not for..
-How good is Paul Medhurst!? I mean really, he's come from inconsistent fringe goal-sneak to deserving All-Australian and (yep, I'll say it) the best player on a potential top 4 team. 19 possessions, 10 marks and 5 goals (could have easily been 7 or 8) makes Medhurst a pretty easy choice for player of the game today. The real story though is how good Medhurst has been this year. The transformation began in last year's finals campaign, and we're reaping the results right now. 7th in the league in goals (42.20, accurate too), 5th in marks and 15th in kicks. His averages of 16 disposals, 8 marks and 3 goals a game are unreal. It's not uncommon from players to make the leap from fringe player to weekly contributor, but Medhurst has jumped from fringe player to superstar - in less than 12 months.
-Very quiet games from Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury. Thomas has been the one to come under scrutiny this year, but he's satisfied my expectations this year. Pendlebury hasn't.
-John Anthony looks like he could be a handy role player. Two calmly slotted goals.
-Harry O'Brien was fantastic, and a sweet launch and mark over Johncock. This kid continues to impress.
-Marty Clarke was brilliant today, 21 possies, 8 marks and a terrific goal to put the icing on the cake.
-Adelaide didn't kick a meaningful goal in the second half.
-After Scott Thompson singlehandedly ripped apart Richmond a few weeks ago I was ready to declare him one of the 10-12 best players in the league. Not so much now. Just 13 kicks in the past two weeks, and today despite racking up 36 disposals he had a limited impact on the game. Judd, Kerr, Goodes, Ablett, Bartel, Harvey, Black - 36 disposals is almost an automatic 3 votes. Thompson isn't on that level yet by any means.
Today was ugly, it was sloppy, but it was effective. It's a solid win that with percentage effectively puts Collingwood two games clear of 7th spot and an away final. Next week represents the third consecutive if-you-want-to-have-a-real-crack-at-September-you-need-to-win-this-match, currently the Pies are 2 for 2 in that category, so here's hoping they'll be able to go 3 for 3 with a win over the Roos next Friday night.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
To stop the greatest of all time
You know you're watching something special when it's 5am on a week day in the middle of a rain delay and the thought of going to sleep doesn't even enter your mind for fear of missing the event. Such was the case Monday morning (Australian time) when Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer in an epic, arguably the greatest tennis match of all time.
How good was this match? How thrilling? Thrilling enough that my dad asked me if something was wrong when he noticed an irregularity in my breathing rate. (I wasn't breathing). In terms of tennis there's nothing (at least in my lifetime) that compares to what transpired Monday morning. There are a number of great matches that come to mind - the Rafter matches against Agassi and Ivanesevic, the Safin match where he finally beat Federer in Melbourne, the 21-19 Roddick-El Aynauoi clash, and even last year's matchup between Federer Nadal at Wimbledon. None of those matches come close to what we witnessed.
The storylines surrounding the match before and during the match (and now after), the build-up, and most importantly the incredible quality of tennis. The rallies, the blows these guys traded was amazing. The parity of the contest was incredible. For two completely different players to be so even was ridiculous. For the first time in over 25 years tennis has a great rivalry. It's been something that the game has missed dearly. The last decade or so has given as a number of pretenders. Sampras-Agassi was never really a great rivalry because Sampras quite clearly superior. Federer-Roddick was the same. My hope was for Federer-Safin (after the classic at the Australian Open in '05) but Safin's inconsistency made short work of that. At last we have a rivalry to match Borg-McEnroe, and potentially exceed it.
Enough philosophising though, here are my thoughts on the game;
I must confess I only started watching the game at 5-4 Nadal in the first set after I got home late from a party. That game though told me all I needed to know about the match. Nadal controlled the rallies and directed the play trying to keep Federer pinned deep with his trademark top-spin forehand crosscourt into the Federer backhand. Federer would try work the ball to Nadal's backhand and set up something short for his blistering forehand to put away. The longer the point went the better chance Nadal had of winning it. Nadal didn't exactly hammer away the first set with conviction, conceding break points before closing it out. In this game Federer was plagued by an inability to even put Nadal's second serve back into play. It was astounding. Nadal was lucky to escape with the first set.
My tennis coach once told me that the most vital games of a match can come at the start of the second set after you've won the first. It's crucial to maintain pressure on the opposition and not give away easy games. Nadal didn't exactly do that, as Federer held serve to love in about 12 seconds. So often we see after an easy service game the server will come back to break. Federer did exactly that and raced off to a 4-1 lead. By that time I was pretty much ready to get ready for the third set. Then we learnt something about Nadal. He wasn't going to give in and give Federer anything. Nadal refused to accept that the second set was a foregone conclusion. He rallied and stunningly reeled off five games in a row to claim the second set, and seemingly end the match's competitiveness. At that stage I was getting ready for an early night.
The third set began tamely enough as the stars traded service holds. Then at 3-3 0-40 on Federer's serve we were prepared to say goodbye to the 'epic' we had hoped for. At this stage we figured that hey, Federer's a superstar, the greatest player of all time, winner of 12 grand slams and 5 Wimbledon's in a row, but he had lost it. He surrendered meekly to Djokovic in the Australian, was thoroughly raped by Nadal in the French, and as he had all year, had looked like a shadow of himself in the Wimbledon final. And at 4-6 4-6 3-3 0-40 he had lost it. We were effectively one point away from the end of an era. A straight sets victory to Nadal and the age of Federer's comes to an end, no doubt. Then something happened. Federer, like Nadal in the second, refused to give in. It was the first sign of resiliency we had seen from Federer since the final last year. Nadal tightened up, Federer delivered some big serves, and after a pump of the first he held for a 4-3 lead. The momentum had swung.
The Fed-Express rode this momentum all the way into the tiebreak, taking it 7-5 courtesy of four huge aces. (Minor note here: I thought it was important and indicative of things to come that down 6-3 in the tiebreak Nadal held his own and forced Federer to serve it out at 6-5. It just sent the message that Nadal wasn't going to let Federer do it the easy way).
At this point in the match Federer had all the momentum, and despite Nadal's 2-1 set advantage, Federer would be edging for slight favouritism. But, in a big boost for Nadal, the Spaniard had the right to serve first in the fourth set. So despite having the momentum Federer was forced into playing from behind for the whole set. This was huge. This came into play in a big way in the 10th game of the set. Down 5-4 0-30 on his serve, Federer was two points away from losing his Wimbledon crown. If there was ever a time to hop on the Nadal bandwagon it was now. But in trademark Federer fashion the King delivered some big serves and in no time we had another tiebreak. Unlike the previous tiebreak, it was Nadal this time who jumped in front early. Nadal's anticipation and attack on the Federer serve in the tiebreak was remarkable. Nadal jumped to a 5-2 lead with two of his own serves to come. He had the match. It was his to lose. Until. He choked. An 83mph second serve double fault opened the door for Federer, and he pounced. At 5-2 Nadal only needed to win one of the next four points to bring up Championship point on his own serve. And he lost. All of them. Instead of holding the Wimbledon trophy as he should have been by now he was now looking at a set point against him. No one would have been surprised to see Rafa drop that point, the set, and the match from there. But he didn't.
Just as he did in the second set and the third set tiebreak he responded. He held his own and brought up his first championship point at 7-6. To the surprise of absolutely no one Federer unleashed an unreturnable serve to tie the breaker up at 7-7. Then came something special. The next two points of the match really defined it, and the rivalry. I'm not sure there has ever been as special a back-to-back points as the ones here. At 7-7 two points away from the championship Nadal struggled to return a big Federer serve, and Federer charged into the net with a fantastic deep approach shot the Nadal forehand. Nadal ran and chased the ball down before drilling it down the line past the shocked Federer. I can not display in words how incredible this moment was. Federer played the point almost perfectly. Good solid serve, solid approach, but Nadal still came up with the winner. How Nadal a) got to the ball, and b) hit a winner was amazing. That ball was gone, Nadal had to hit a winner and he did. That point personified Nadal in this match and in his career. Against the ropes, resiliency, determination, grit and a knack for the sublime. And it brought up Championship point.
Then Federer reminded us why he's the greatest player of all time. Nadal unleashed a terrific serve out wide and Federer could only bunt it back to half-court. Nadal then whips a forehand into the Federer backhand and charges to the net. Federer, of perfect balance, then drills it down the line for a winner. In no time Federer has the set 10-8. If the 7-7 point defined Nadal, the 7-8 point defined Federer. Smooth, balanced and perfectly poised. And with it he had taken the match to a fifth set, the only fitting way for the match to end.
OK, let it be known that at this point there was no way possible I could see Nadal winning this match. I mean, 2 sets to 0 up, 3-3 0-40 in the third set, 4-5 0-30 in the fourth set, 5-2 up in the tiebreak, two championship points in the tiebreak. On the 8-7 point in the tiebreak if Nadal goes down the line to the wide open forehand court instead of hitting it to Federer's covered backhand, the match is over. Nadal should have already had this match won of five different occasions. And yet, the game is tied and on level ground. How, mentally, is it possible to get past that?
After the incredible Borg-McEnroe, er, Nadal-Federer fourth set tiebreak, the start of the fifth set suffered from some notable jet-lag. The intensity was lacking, and then at 2-2 the rain came. This turned out to be a good thing for a) the players, and b) the spectacle. Both guys came out rejuvenated, and Federer sent a huge message by hammering down two aces to finish of the rain delayed game and take a 3-2 advantage. A big moment of truth for Nadal came at 4-3 down and serving. At 4-6 4-6 7-6 7-6 4-3 for the first time in the match Federer took the tactical advantage. After Fed had blasted some short forehand winners of shallow Nadal returns, Nadal blatantly refused to go near Federer's forehand side. You might think this is a good idea, it's not the stupidest thing to keep it away from arguably the single greatest shot of all time. But the fact is for Nadal to beat Federer he has to go to forehand side on occasion. You rally to Federer's backhand then push it deep to Federer's forehand to open up the court. So long as the ball is sufficiently deep then Federer can't (usually at least, he often finds a way) hit a winner, and he often drops it short. But after Nadal suddenly lost depth on his groundstrokes, he lost the confidence to go to take on Federer's forehand. This in turn led to a break point opportunity for Federer.
This was it for Nadal, 4-3 down break point, lose this point and Federer serves for his 6th Wimbledon championship. You can say what you want about Nadal's mental toughness in this match, but you can't tell me that he wins that game. Not on this court. For all intents and purposes, the break point Nadal faced here was Championship point Federer. After looking fragile for the whole game and most of the set Nadal played the biggest point of his life with aggression. He took the game on, and delivered a big whipping forehand deep to Federer's forehand side. Federer, expecting it to his backhand, struggled into the open court and barely connected, only able to put up a simple put-away volley for the Spaniard. Moments later it was 4-4.
At this point it was interesting to note the body language of both players. On one side of the court was the calm and collected Federer, sensing the end was in sight. He looked like a hunter poised for the kill. In stark contrast was Nadal, visibly living and dying with every point. After an ace of his was taken away by a slight brushing of the let-chord he threw his arms up in the air. You just wouldn't see Federer do that. Towards the end of the fifth, every single point that Nadal won he pumped his fist. He wanted it badly.
The two traded service holds, none of which were without drama. At 4-5 30-30 Federer found himself two points away from the championship. At 5-5 Federer was down 15-40, and at 6-6 found himself 0-30. Every time he found big serves to save him. Then came the fateful game at 7-7. By this stage Nadal was handling the Federer serve. Federer wasn't making all of his first serves, and when he did Nadal was anticipating them. After saving two break points at 15-40, Federer found himself down another having lost the point at Deuce. After an erratic forehand long, Nadal had the break. But of course it was never going to be that easy.
Serving for the Championship is just about the most pressure packed situation you can ask for. And when you lose the first point, as Nadal did, doubt starts to creep in. Nadal though, to his credit, responded going up 30-15. All of a sudden he was up 40-30 with the Championship on his racquet (again). Federer then continued on his campaign to be the next Jesus Christ when he blasted a Nadal serve for a cross-court backhand winner. Deuce. A Nadal serve brings up match point. Nadal plays it tentatively, and Federer sets himself up for an regulation mid-court forehand winner. Except. It hits the net. Game over. Bedlam for Nadal. The greatest match of all time comes to a conclusion.
I won't deny it, I was strongly barracking for Nadal to win. The way he grinds, the way he chases everything down, his determination, it's hard not to barrack for him. On the other hand, as many people are, I'm kinda sick of Federer. I appreciate him and what he's done, but I can't support him. Barracking for him is like barracking for the sun to set. It's boring. You support the underdog. For these reasons, wanting Nadal to win so badly, this was less a tennis match and more so a nervous breakdown divided into 5 sets. It wasn't so much a match of tennis so much as it was an experience.
As to how Nadal managed to win this match I do not know. People will question his mental toughness after choking in the fourth set tiebreak, but honestly, has there ever been a greater example of mental fortitude than overcoming that failure and winning in the fifth? I can't think of any. Federer may have wanted to win this match, and wanted it badly. Nadal needed it. He wasn't letting another year of training go down the drain, he knew that if he lost every other match until next year's Wimbledon would be irrelevant. After last year's loss Nadal broke down in tears in the locker room, inconsolable. He wasn't going to feel that again, he refused to. They say that the guy that wins the fight is the guy that's willing to die. In this fight, Nadal was the guy willing to die.
So what does this match tell us? Had he won, having been two sets and four championship points down, Federer would have to be unequivocally labeled the greatest player of all time. Period. The fact that he had the match (the momentum he had after the fourth set) and lost it to a guy that wanted it more leaves reason for doubt. What is clear though is that Federer may be the greatest player of all time, but at this moment Nadal is the greatest player in the world. And that's not debatable.
How good was this match? How thrilling? Thrilling enough that my dad asked me if something was wrong when he noticed an irregularity in my breathing rate. (I wasn't breathing). In terms of tennis there's nothing (at least in my lifetime) that compares to what transpired Monday morning. There are a number of great matches that come to mind - the Rafter matches against Agassi and Ivanesevic, the Safin match where he finally beat Federer in Melbourne, the 21-19 Roddick-El Aynauoi clash, and even last year's matchup between Federer Nadal at Wimbledon. None of those matches come close to what we witnessed.
The storylines surrounding the match before and during the match (and now after), the build-up, and most importantly the incredible quality of tennis. The rallies, the blows these guys traded was amazing. The parity of the contest was incredible. For two completely different players to be so even was ridiculous. For the first time in over 25 years tennis has a great rivalry. It's been something that the game has missed dearly. The last decade or so has given as a number of pretenders. Sampras-Agassi was never really a great rivalry because Sampras quite clearly superior. Federer-Roddick was the same. My hope was for Federer-Safin (after the classic at the Australian Open in '05) but Safin's inconsistency made short work of that. At last we have a rivalry to match Borg-McEnroe, and potentially exceed it.
Enough philosophising though, here are my thoughts on the game;
I must confess I only started watching the game at 5-4 Nadal in the first set after I got home late from a party. That game though told me all I needed to know about the match. Nadal controlled the rallies and directed the play trying to keep Federer pinned deep with his trademark top-spin forehand crosscourt into the Federer backhand. Federer would try work the ball to Nadal's backhand and set up something short for his blistering forehand to put away. The longer the point went the better chance Nadal had of winning it. Nadal didn't exactly hammer away the first set with conviction, conceding break points before closing it out. In this game Federer was plagued by an inability to even put Nadal's second serve back into play. It was astounding. Nadal was lucky to escape with the first set.
My tennis coach once told me that the most vital games of a match can come at the start of the second set after you've won the first. It's crucial to maintain pressure on the opposition and not give away easy games. Nadal didn't exactly do that, as Federer held serve to love in about 12 seconds. So often we see after an easy service game the server will come back to break. Federer did exactly that and raced off to a 4-1 lead. By that time I was pretty much ready to get ready for the third set. Then we learnt something about Nadal. He wasn't going to give in and give Federer anything. Nadal refused to accept that the second set was a foregone conclusion. He rallied and stunningly reeled off five games in a row to claim the second set, and seemingly end the match's competitiveness. At that stage I was getting ready for an early night.
The third set began tamely enough as the stars traded service holds. Then at 3-3 0-40 on Federer's serve we were prepared to say goodbye to the 'epic' we had hoped for. At this stage we figured that hey, Federer's a superstar, the greatest player of all time, winner of 12 grand slams and 5 Wimbledon's in a row, but he had lost it. He surrendered meekly to Djokovic in the Australian, was thoroughly raped by Nadal in the French, and as he had all year, had looked like a shadow of himself in the Wimbledon final. And at 4-6 4-6 3-3 0-40 he had lost it. We were effectively one point away from the end of an era. A straight sets victory to Nadal and the age of Federer's comes to an end, no doubt. Then something happened. Federer, like Nadal in the second, refused to give in. It was the first sign of resiliency we had seen from Federer since the final last year. Nadal tightened up, Federer delivered some big serves, and after a pump of the first he held for a 4-3 lead. The momentum had swung.
The Fed-Express rode this momentum all the way into the tiebreak, taking it 7-5 courtesy of four huge aces. (Minor note here: I thought it was important and indicative of things to come that down 6-3 in the tiebreak Nadal held his own and forced Federer to serve it out at 6-5. It just sent the message that Nadal wasn't going to let Federer do it the easy way).
At this point in the match Federer had all the momentum, and despite Nadal's 2-1 set advantage, Federer would be edging for slight favouritism. But, in a big boost for Nadal, the Spaniard had the right to serve first in the fourth set. So despite having the momentum Federer was forced into playing from behind for the whole set. This was huge. This came into play in a big way in the 10th game of the set. Down 5-4 0-30 on his serve, Federer was two points away from losing his Wimbledon crown. If there was ever a time to hop on the Nadal bandwagon it was now. But in trademark Federer fashion the King delivered some big serves and in no time we had another tiebreak. Unlike the previous tiebreak, it was Nadal this time who jumped in front early. Nadal's anticipation and attack on the Federer serve in the tiebreak was remarkable. Nadal jumped to a 5-2 lead with two of his own serves to come. He had the match. It was his to lose. Until. He choked. An 83mph second serve double fault opened the door for Federer, and he pounced. At 5-2 Nadal only needed to win one of the next four points to bring up Championship point on his own serve. And he lost. All of them. Instead of holding the Wimbledon trophy as he should have been by now he was now looking at a set point against him. No one would have been surprised to see Rafa drop that point, the set, and the match from there. But he didn't.
Just as he did in the second set and the third set tiebreak he responded. He held his own and brought up his first championship point at 7-6. To the surprise of absolutely no one Federer unleashed an unreturnable serve to tie the breaker up at 7-7. Then came something special. The next two points of the match really defined it, and the rivalry. I'm not sure there has ever been as special a back-to-back points as the ones here. At 7-7 two points away from the championship Nadal struggled to return a big Federer serve, and Federer charged into the net with a fantastic deep approach shot the Nadal forehand. Nadal ran and chased the ball down before drilling it down the line past the shocked Federer. I can not display in words how incredible this moment was. Federer played the point almost perfectly. Good solid serve, solid approach, but Nadal still came up with the winner. How Nadal a) got to the ball, and b) hit a winner was amazing. That ball was gone, Nadal had to hit a winner and he did. That point personified Nadal in this match and in his career. Against the ropes, resiliency, determination, grit and a knack for the sublime. And it brought up Championship point.
Then Federer reminded us why he's the greatest player of all time. Nadal unleashed a terrific serve out wide and Federer could only bunt it back to half-court. Nadal then whips a forehand into the Federer backhand and charges to the net. Federer, of perfect balance, then drills it down the line for a winner. In no time Federer has the set 10-8. If the 7-7 point defined Nadal, the 7-8 point defined Federer. Smooth, balanced and perfectly poised. And with it he had taken the match to a fifth set, the only fitting way for the match to end.
OK, let it be known that at this point there was no way possible I could see Nadal winning this match. I mean, 2 sets to 0 up, 3-3 0-40 in the third set, 4-5 0-30 in the fourth set, 5-2 up in the tiebreak, two championship points in the tiebreak. On the 8-7 point in the tiebreak if Nadal goes down the line to the wide open forehand court instead of hitting it to Federer's covered backhand, the match is over. Nadal should have already had this match won of five different occasions. And yet, the game is tied and on level ground. How, mentally, is it possible to get past that?
After the incredible Borg-McEnroe, er, Nadal-Federer fourth set tiebreak, the start of the fifth set suffered from some notable jet-lag. The intensity was lacking, and then at 2-2 the rain came. This turned out to be a good thing for a) the players, and b) the spectacle. Both guys came out rejuvenated, and Federer sent a huge message by hammering down two aces to finish of the rain delayed game and take a 3-2 advantage. A big moment of truth for Nadal came at 4-3 down and serving. At 4-6 4-6 7-6 7-6 4-3 for the first time in the match Federer took the tactical advantage. After Fed had blasted some short forehand winners of shallow Nadal returns, Nadal blatantly refused to go near Federer's forehand side. You might think this is a good idea, it's not the stupidest thing to keep it away from arguably the single greatest shot of all time. But the fact is for Nadal to beat Federer he has to go to forehand side on occasion. You rally to Federer's backhand then push it deep to Federer's forehand to open up the court. So long as the ball is sufficiently deep then Federer can't (usually at least, he often finds a way) hit a winner, and he often drops it short. But after Nadal suddenly lost depth on his groundstrokes, he lost the confidence to go to take on Federer's forehand. This in turn led to a break point opportunity for Federer.
This was it for Nadal, 4-3 down break point, lose this point and Federer serves for his 6th Wimbledon championship. You can say what you want about Nadal's mental toughness in this match, but you can't tell me that he wins that game. Not on this court. For all intents and purposes, the break point Nadal faced here was Championship point Federer. After looking fragile for the whole game and most of the set Nadal played the biggest point of his life with aggression. He took the game on, and delivered a big whipping forehand deep to Federer's forehand side. Federer, expecting it to his backhand, struggled into the open court and barely connected, only able to put up a simple put-away volley for the Spaniard. Moments later it was 4-4.
At this point it was interesting to note the body language of both players. On one side of the court was the calm and collected Federer, sensing the end was in sight. He looked like a hunter poised for the kill. In stark contrast was Nadal, visibly living and dying with every point. After an ace of his was taken away by a slight brushing of the let-chord he threw his arms up in the air. You just wouldn't see Federer do that. Towards the end of the fifth, every single point that Nadal won he pumped his fist. He wanted it badly.
The two traded service holds, none of which were without drama. At 4-5 30-30 Federer found himself two points away from the championship. At 5-5 Federer was down 15-40, and at 6-6 found himself 0-30. Every time he found big serves to save him. Then came the fateful game at 7-7. By this stage Nadal was handling the Federer serve. Federer wasn't making all of his first serves, and when he did Nadal was anticipating them. After saving two break points at 15-40, Federer found himself down another having lost the point at Deuce. After an erratic forehand long, Nadal had the break. But of course it was never going to be that easy.
Serving for the Championship is just about the most pressure packed situation you can ask for. And when you lose the first point, as Nadal did, doubt starts to creep in. Nadal though, to his credit, responded going up 30-15. All of a sudden he was up 40-30 with the Championship on his racquet (again). Federer then continued on his campaign to be the next Jesus Christ when he blasted a Nadal serve for a cross-court backhand winner. Deuce. A Nadal serve brings up match point. Nadal plays it tentatively, and Federer sets himself up for an regulation mid-court forehand winner. Except. It hits the net. Game over. Bedlam for Nadal. The greatest match of all time comes to a conclusion.
I won't deny it, I was strongly barracking for Nadal to win. The way he grinds, the way he chases everything down, his determination, it's hard not to barrack for him. On the other hand, as many people are, I'm kinda sick of Federer. I appreciate him and what he's done, but I can't support him. Barracking for him is like barracking for the sun to set. It's boring. You support the underdog. For these reasons, wanting Nadal to win so badly, this was less a tennis match and more so a nervous breakdown divided into 5 sets. It wasn't so much a match of tennis so much as it was an experience.
As to how Nadal managed to win this match I do not know. People will question his mental toughness after choking in the fourth set tiebreak, but honestly, has there ever been a greater example of mental fortitude than overcoming that failure and winning in the fifth? I can't think of any. Federer may have wanted to win this match, and wanted it badly. Nadal needed it. He wasn't letting another year of training go down the drain, he knew that if he lost every other match until next year's Wimbledon would be irrelevant. After last year's loss Nadal broke down in tears in the locker room, inconsolable. He wasn't going to feel that again, he refused to. They say that the guy that wins the fight is the guy that's willing to die. In this fight, Nadal was the guy willing to die.
So what does this match tell us? Had he won, having been two sets and four championship points down, Federer would have to be unequivocally labeled the greatest player of all time. Period. The fact that he had the match (the momentum he had after the fourth set) and lost it to a guy that wanted it more leaves reason for doubt. What is clear though is that Federer may be the greatest player of all time, but at this moment Nadal is the greatest player in the world. And that's not debatable.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Bogey team
Over the years there have been a number of teams Collingwood just struggle to beat. The Bulldogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne for instance always seem to get the better of Collingwood no matter what the situation with ladder positions. On the flipside there are a few teams the Pies have the wood over. The media would have you believe that one of these teams is Geelong, but that's not exactly true. It is true to some extent (the 86 point shock this year, and the 100+ point thumping in 2006), but the fact remains that Geelong have won 2 of the past 3 against the Woods. The two teams that really stand out to me are one Adelaide, and two Sydney.
After the Pies' big grinding win on Saturday night against the Swans we can officially label ourselves as Sydney's bogey team. Why have Collingwood beaten Sydney on the past 5 occasions (including 4 in the past 12 months)? It's hard to say. Collingwood's backline lacks depth yet time and time again they minimalise the damage of Sydney's three-pronged attack of Hall, O'Loughlin and O'Keefe. (The fact that they can do this but get thoroughly dominated by the one-dimensional Fevola-oriented Carlton attack is maddening). The Woods' ruckman are arguably the worst in the league, yet they seem to hold their own against Everitt and Jolley - arguably the best in the league.
To me Collingwood's leverage over Sydney comes down to this. The Swans have a solid backline with a guy that provides drive from the back-flank (Kennelley), a workmanlike midfield of accountable players, and a terrifically structured forward line in the league. They win games because of their commitment, pressure and intensity. That's basically Collingwood in a nutshell (with Heath Shaw taking Kennelley's role). Collingwood do all the things that Sydney do, just better. The difference between the two teams is that Collingwood is vastly more talented, faster and younger. The other difference is that Collingwood have playmakers and gamebreakers like Dale Thomas, Scott Pendlebury, Paul Medhurst and Alan Didak. Each of those four guys can turn a game singlehandedly within minutes. Thomas did just that in the first half. Creating something out of nothing. Sydney have just one of those players, and he didn't even play Saturday night. Say what you want about the Swans but without Adam Goodes they are a fringe top 8 team.
The difference between Collingwood and Sydney is all about the ceiling. At best Sydney is a 4th team that bows out in a preliminary final. That's their ceiling. Collingwood on their day can beat any team in the league. Sydney can not, and as disciplined and well coached as they may be, you need superior talent to win a premiership. Collingwood have that and Sydney doesn't.
Saturday night was not a pleasant spectacle, but the Pies got the job done. A spurt in the second quarter capped by Travis Cloke's fantastic goal from 55m out won the match. Collingwood's defensive efficiency in the first three quarters was truly remarkable. Not only did Sydney score just 2 goals (one of which resulted from a Heath Shaw 50m penalty), they never looked like scoring. Every time the ball went into the Swans forward line the Pies had the numbers and composure to clear the ball cleanly. I will admit to being a bit scared in the final term, and had O'Loughlin kicked that relatively easy goal with something like eight minutes remaining to make the score 61-45 I might be writing the eulogy to Collingwood's season right now. Fortunately it wasn't to be, and the Pies held on.
A few notes from the game...
-Collingwood murdered Sydney winning the contested ball. It just seemed that every time there was a contested possession to be won the Pies came up with the goodes that Sydney didn't have, awful pun I know.
-On most occasions you could put that down to Collingwood's superior quickness, and more often than not - superior football IQ.
-Disappointing from Heath Shaw. Firstly to give away a stupid 50m penalty that directly led to the goal that let Sydney back in the match. Secondly and more importantly though, he missed the perfect 'fuck you' moment minutes later when he missed a relatively simple set shot at the other end. Champions make that shot at goal.
-I don't care that he's got zero skill and makes poor decisions with the ball, I want Tyson Goldsack on my team. He does the one percenters as well as anyone in the league. His smothers, his accountability and his desperation is fantastic. I love you moneybags.
-Travis Cloke is a star. Saturday night he was the best player on the field hands down.
-Dale Thomas has that James Hird quality where he could only get 9 touches for a game and still be the best player on the field. Can't overstate how huge he was in the first quarter.
-What did Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin kick between them? Was it 2.7?
-Sydney's three main forwards (Hall, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe) kicked 3.8, Collingwood's three main ones (Cloke, Medhurst, Thomas) kicked 8.5. That's huge.
-How frustrating was the inaccuracy of the first quarter? Luckily after the abysmal 1.5 of the first quarter (5 makeable shots) Collingwood kicked 10.8 for the rest of the game.
-Sydney came back strong in the last quarter, but they should have come back stronger - they kicked seven behinds in the final term.
-John Anthony looked solid. He won't be a star, but with his solid overhead marking and aerial ability he could be a decent player.
-Great to see how far Alan Didak has come on his opposite foot. Early last year he literally could not kick the ball on his right foot. Saturday night he hit targets along the boundary with it and kicked the sealing goal with a spearing 35m drop punt on it.
All in all it was a good win for the Pies, not pretty, but extremely necessary. It's a big step towards the top 4, and at the very least securing a spot in the top 8. At this point Collingwood are Sydney's only legitimate competition for 4th spot and the right to play Geelong, something I'm sure Collingwood fans would relish (86 FREAKIN POINTS!!). That said, the top 4 is overrated this year. Not the teams that are in it, but the importance of it per se. With the top three teams being Victorian and the fourth being Sydney, it's not like years past where finishing out of the top four might been a trip to play in the house of death against Judd, Cousins, Kerr Eagles in Perth or a trip to Brisbane or Port Adelaide. If Collingwood finish out of the 4 but in the 8, and win their first final, they're going to be playing either at the MCG or in Sydney, which as we know is hardly a bad thing. Give me an elimination final against the Swans in Sydney anyway of the week.
Of course the double chance is still huge and Collingwood still have to solidify their spot in the eight. The Sydney win was a start, and they can continue with a win next week against Adelaide at the 'G. And if they have any premiership aspirations, that's a game they absolutely have to win.
After the Pies' big grinding win on Saturday night against the Swans we can officially label ourselves as Sydney's bogey team. Why have Collingwood beaten Sydney on the past 5 occasions (including 4 in the past 12 months)? It's hard to say. Collingwood's backline lacks depth yet time and time again they minimalise the damage of Sydney's three-pronged attack of Hall, O'Loughlin and O'Keefe. (The fact that they can do this but get thoroughly dominated by the one-dimensional Fevola-oriented Carlton attack is maddening). The Woods' ruckman are arguably the worst in the league, yet they seem to hold their own against Everitt and Jolley - arguably the best in the league.
To me Collingwood's leverage over Sydney comes down to this. The Swans have a solid backline with a guy that provides drive from the back-flank (Kennelley), a workmanlike midfield of accountable players, and a terrifically structured forward line in the league. They win games because of their commitment, pressure and intensity. That's basically Collingwood in a nutshell (with Heath Shaw taking Kennelley's role). Collingwood do all the things that Sydney do, just better. The difference between the two teams is that Collingwood is vastly more talented, faster and younger. The other difference is that Collingwood have playmakers and gamebreakers like Dale Thomas, Scott Pendlebury, Paul Medhurst and Alan Didak. Each of those four guys can turn a game singlehandedly within minutes. Thomas did just that in the first half. Creating something out of nothing. Sydney have just one of those players, and he didn't even play Saturday night. Say what you want about the Swans but without Adam Goodes they are a fringe top 8 team.
The difference between Collingwood and Sydney is all about the ceiling. At best Sydney is a 4th team that bows out in a preliminary final. That's their ceiling. Collingwood on their day can beat any team in the league. Sydney can not, and as disciplined and well coached as they may be, you need superior talent to win a premiership. Collingwood have that and Sydney doesn't.
Saturday night was not a pleasant spectacle, but the Pies got the job done. A spurt in the second quarter capped by Travis Cloke's fantastic goal from 55m out won the match. Collingwood's defensive efficiency in the first three quarters was truly remarkable. Not only did Sydney score just 2 goals (one of which resulted from a Heath Shaw 50m penalty), they never looked like scoring. Every time the ball went into the Swans forward line the Pies had the numbers and composure to clear the ball cleanly. I will admit to being a bit scared in the final term, and had O'Loughlin kicked that relatively easy goal with something like eight minutes remaining to make the score 61-45 I might be writing the eulogy to Collingwood's season right now. Fortunately it wasn't to be, and the Pies held on.
A few notes from the game...
-Collingwood murdered Sydney winning the contested ball. It just seemed that every time there was a contested possession to be won the Pies came up with the goodes that Sydney didn't have, awful pun I know.
-On most occasions you could put that down to Collingwood's superior quickness, and more often than not - superior football IQ.
-Disappointing from Heath Shaw. Firstly to give away a stupid 50m penalty that directly led to the goal that let Sydney back in the match. Secondly and more importantly though, he missed the perfect 'fuck you' moment minutes later when he missed a relatively simple set shot at the other end. Champions make that shot at goal.
-I don't care that he's got zero skill and makes poor decisions with the ball, I want Tyson Goldsack on my team. He does the one percenters as well as anyone in the league. His smothers, his accountability and his desperation is fantastic. I love you moneybags.
-Travis Cloke is a star. Saturday night he was the best player on the field hands down.
-Dale Thomas has that James Hird quality where he could only get 9 touches for a game and still be the best player on the field. Can't overstate how huge he was in the first quarter.
-What did Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin kick between them? Was it 2.7?
-Sydney's three main forwards (Hall, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe) kicked 3.8, Collingwood's three main ones (Cloke, Medhurst, Thomas) kicked 8.5. That's huge.
-How frustrating was the inaccuracy of the first quarter? Luckily after the abysmal 1.5 of the first quarter (5 makeable shots) Collingwood kicked 10.8 for the rest of the game.
-Sydney came back strong in the last quarter, but they should have come back stronger - they kicked seven behinds in the final term.
-John Anthony looked solid. He won't be a star, but with his solid overhead marking and aerial ability he could be a decent player.
-Great to see how far Alan Didak has come on his opposite foot. Early last year he literally could not kick the ball on his right foot. Saturday night he hit targets along the boundary with it and kicked the sealing goal with a spearing 35m drop punt on it.
All in all it was a good win for the Pies, not pretty, but extremely necessary. It's a big step towards the top 4, and at the very least securing a spot in the top 8. At this point Collingwood are Sydney's only legitimate competition for 4th spot and the right to play Geelong, something I'm sure Collingwood fans would relish (86 FREAKIN POINTS!!). That said, the top 4 is overrated this year. Not the teams that are in it, but the importance of it per se. With the top three teams being Victorian and the fourth being Sydney, it's not like years past where finishing out of the top four might been a trip to play in the house of death against Judd, Cousins, Kerr Eagles in Perth or a trip to Brisbane or Port Adelaide. If Collingwood finish out of the 4 but in the 8, and win their first final, they're going to be playing either at the MCG or in Sydney, which as we know is hardly a bad thing. Give me an elimination final against the Swans in Sydney anyway of the week.
Of course the double chance is still huge and Collingwood still have to solidify their spot in the eight. The Sydney win was a start, and they can continue with a win next week against Adelaide at the 'G. And if they have any premiership aspirations, that's a game they absolutely have to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
