Today coming in from Les Zigomanis at BackpageLead.com.au, Les takes a close look at Collingwood, and why Hawthorn seems to have the wood.




Sunday saw another Collingwood capitulation to Hawthorn, which some might believe is true to form - Hawthorn have won ten of the last thirteen such encounters, after all.

However, let's consider Collingwood's three victories in that trend: in Round 4, 2010, Collingwood by 64 points; in Round 15, 2011, Collingwood by 41 points (a game in which they relaxed once they'd established a commanding lead); and the famous come-from-behind victory in the 2011 Preliminary Final, a match the Hawks had all but won.

They're three relatively meritorious wins, and suggest Collingwood has the potential to beat the Hawks, but, since, haven't been able to put it together to remain competitive throughout a game.
Here are my five reasons why:

5. The Mental Edge
Collingwood's period of mini-dominance against Hawthorn (2010-2011) occurred when Collingwood exercised a stranglehold over the competition through their defensive pressure, unrelenting harassment, and frenetic tackling - the manic system known as The Press. This was their form of intimidation. Now it's well and truly gone.

Defensively, it not only leaves Collingwood lacking, but also vulnerable to sides who are - as Hawthorn have been under Alastair Clarkson - unsociable. Simply, ugly football seems to rattle Collingwood, and they no longer have the punch - or counter-punch - The Press offered them.

Consider, for example, Luke Hodge sliding into Harry O'Brien's feet and upending O'Brien in Sunday's match. O'Brien gets up and appears to check whether Hodge is okay, whilst Burgoyne comes in and offers mini-remonstration.

It's emblematic of the mindset. One side enjoys it down and dirty. The other doesn't. That's not to question Collingwood's courage, collectively or individually, but when the game strays purely from football, when it gets a bit ugly, when there are some late slings and shoves (and Hawthorn love to bring this attitude to games) Collingwood seem to lose their composure.

4. The Buddy Factor
Franklin can obviously tear apart any opposition on any given day. The retired Chris Tarrant was the perfect match-up, he was athletic, quick, and he wasn't afraid to be the mongrel to try shake Franklin up.

In Tarrant's absence, Ben Reid has the job. This would seem a decent match-up - Reid's quick, can read the play, and is a great mark.

But consider this: in 2010-2011, Reid was a weapon for Collingwood playing at centre-half back and intercepting opposition attacks. In his All-Australian year of 2011 (his first full year of football) he led the league for intercepting marks (in defence).
Playing him on Franklin deprives Collingwood one of its most potent weapons. Collingwood would be much better served using somebody like Tyson Goldsack on Franklin, and Reid in the role where his strongest defence will come from his offence, and where - as a by-product of that role - he'll actually thwart Franklin best.
It's a situation comparable to Dustin Fletcher - Fletcher rarely begins on the opposition's best forward, because he can contribute most to Essendon playing as an interceptor and counter-attacker. This was the role Reid filled for Collingwood in 2010-2011 as a centre-half back. It's not the role he fills when Collingwood plays Hawthorn, though, because he's assigned the job on Franklin.

3. Inside Grunt
Hawthorn has an accomplished midfield specialised in winning the inside ball. This is a specialist position. An inside mid needs to have the skill, fearlessness, and the wherewithal to happily hurl themselves into a pack and extract the ball (or at least lock it up).
Collingwood has one player currently who can do this: Luke Ball.
Pendlebury, Swan, and Beams can play as extractors, but are not genuine quantities in this position. It means that if Ball's absent Hawthorn usually win first dibs on the ball, which then nullifies the efficacy of Collingwood's other midfielders. Who, after all, is feeding them the ball?

2. Lack of Defensive Mindset
The Press spoiled Collingwood. They became so acclimated to zoning to harass opponents and getting support from teammates, it's almost as if players forgot how to be individually defensive. They became reliant on this hive mentality.

Look at Harry O'Brien as a prime example. Wind the clock back five or so years, and O'Brien was regularly winning one on ones, consistently notching up scalps such as Nick Riewoldt, Scott Lucas, Eddie Betts, and Stephen Milne, just to name a few. But over the years, O'Brien's ability to play one on one diminished. Under Malthouse (and this is not a criticism of Malthouse, just an observation) it was all about helping out the teammate, all about maintaining that hive. O'Brien's now been moved onto a wing, because he was becoming questionable in defence.

This is not to condemn Harry O'Brien, because it applies to Collingwood players all across the park. The midfield don't seem as defensively minded, the defence leaks as it never has, and the ball regularly rebounds out of attack.

For a side that once prided itself on its defensive pressure and - particularly - accountability, they've devolved, and you question whether it's an instinct that comes naturally (and consistently) to the players anymore.

1. Forward Potency
In 2010, Collingwood's forward line comprised of Cloke, Chris Dawes, Leigh Brown, Leon Davis, Alan Didak (in All-Australian form), Brent McCaffer, Dayne Beams and Jarryd Blair. Every one of these players was a natural forward, or at least naturally attacking. In 2011, Davis was replaced by Andrew Krakouer, whilst Alex Fasolo also got a look in. Again, more attacking forwards, players who could capitalise from half-chances, and make something from nothing.

In 2012, Chris Dawes was woefully out of form. Collingwood lost Leon Davis. Injury deprived their attack of Krakouer, McCaffer, and Didak. Beams and Blair spent more time in the midfield due to other absences.

Amongst the replacements up forward were Tyson Goldsack and Ben Sinclair, both players assigned the roles of defensive forwards. Goldsack's an excellent utility, and Sinclair might one day be a prospect, but neither are natural forwards with a forward's nous. They play more as pinch-hitters.

Collingwood lacks the potency it once did going forward. Three years ago, you could bomb the ball and hit an option. Now, it's Travis Cloke or bust, and delivery often undermines him. Hawthorn's weakness has always been considered its lack of tall defenders. The lack of genuine options for Collingwood in the Forward-50 fails to exploit the one vulnerability Hawthorn has.

Conclusion
A football team is obviously a work in progress and there is always room for improvement. Collingwood still seems to be in transition under Nathan Buckley.

But these five points are the weaknesses I see in Collingwood's efforts time and time again against Hawthorn - weakness that are either not exploited or simply not evident against other opposition.
Only the lack of the inside grunt can't be remedied in the immediate-term, but they have the firepower elsewhere to compensate.

The question is whether they will find a way to use it.