Here’s a big question for the reigning premiers: how exactly can a side that played finals in 2022 and 2023, and looked all ready to fire again, simply putter their way through 2024 – and why?

Below are my ten reasons Collingwood’s 2024 has been underwhelming.

10. The Lachie Schultz Trade

To be clear from the onset, this has nothing to do with Schultz himself, but trading a future first-rounder and a second-rounder for a small forward whose surplus to needs smacks of a certain extravagance.

The hardest thing for any contender is to stay relevant.

Clubs that have topped up inevitably implode within their own largesse – witness Richmond’s and Hawthorn’s fates following their attempts.

Getting young talent in to support the Nick Daicos generation of Collingwood is paramount, but Collingwood insists on not only trading first-rounders but trading them for returns that are not commensurate.

Now Schultz might play five years for Collingwood and have a relatively distinguished career, but it’s a high cost to pay – particularly given the list is aging and needs long-term rejuvenation.

When deals like this are made, you wonder just how judicious the club is, or whether they’ve lost perspective on the medium-term of their future.

9. The Graham Wright Fiasco

Wright tried to serve his notice, but Collingwood refused to accept it.

President Jeff Browne might offer some rhetoric about holding onto good people, but the reality is, as Mick Malthouse used to say, if you’re thinking about retirement, you’re as good as retired.

Did Collingwood find a replacement? Nope. They talked Wright into taking a sabbatical and reconsidering his decision and then reshuffled the entire football department – moving people into new positions and asking them to operate outside their purview – to cover for the absence.

If reports are to be believed, this also causes friction between key stakeholders.

This has succession plan lunacy stamped all over it. Again.

What’s that about those who don’t learn from history?

So after winning a flag, instead of keeping the status quo as closely as possible, Collingwood changed everything to cover for one guy who didn’t want to be there. He has since decided not to return to the club.

Wouldn’t it have been more logical to thank Wright for his service, replace him, and leave everything else the same – or promote somebody from within to succeed him, and then replace that person?

Win a Ziggy BBQ for Grand Final day, thanks to Barbeques Galore! Enter Here.

8. ‘Round Zero’ (Opening Round)

So, after the longest season possible, and the shortest break imaginable, Collingwood fronted up for the AFL’s ‘Round Zero’ lunacy.

People often complain about how Collingwood is fixtured, often ignoring that a contributor to that fixturing is the opposition (and the AFL) wanting the big payday against the Pies.

Regardless, every club should be out there trying to score every advantage, and doing whatever it takes -as long as it’s legal.

I wish Jeff Browne, and/or CEO Craig Kelly, had told the AFL where to stick their ‘Round Zero’, and instead focused on affording their side the best preparation possible going into 2024 – in whatever shape that took.

The Magpies look dejected after losing to the Sydney Swans. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

7. The Defensive Reshuffle

It’s hard to say just how much of a quandary defender Nathan Murphy’s retirement created.

Murphy, who suffered serially from concussion, always seemed one bad knock from having to call it quits.

Now I don’t know if Collingwood expected him to miraculously recuperate for 2024 and, somehow, become impervious to head knocks, or whether internally they were planning for life without him, but their subsequent choices seem questionable.

In ‘Round Zero’ and Round 1, they opted for youngster Charlie Dean.

Dean’s a likely prospect, but after missing two years of football the logical choice would’ve been to play him in the VFL for a while so he could find his legs, rather than throw him into the pressures of AFL against last year’s preliminary finalist.

In Round 2, the Pies dropped Dean and opted for Billy Frampton.

For the next month, Frampton acquitted himself well, and the defence knitted together. But an injury to Mason Cox demanded the brains trust seek another relief ruck.

Who got the gig? Frampton. Now he was thrown forward and into the ruck, which destabilized the defence and did nothing to help the forward line.

Then, when the coaching staff opted for throwing Frampton back into defence, they started playing Howe up forward.

I don’t get any of this. You already have the loss of Murphy to cover. Why remove another lynchpin in Howe?

When Frampton was working, why not leave him there, and try anybody else in the role of tall forward/relief ruck?

It would seem more logical to leave the things that are working, rather than break them to try to fix something else broken.

6. The Flag Unfurling

Collingwood decided to unfurl their 2023 flag in Round Two at the MCG at the inexplicable time of 6.16pm.

Fan dissonance on social media prompted the club to promptly adjust the time – to 6.24pm.

Rewind back to 2011, and Collingwood unfurled their 2010 flag Friday night, Round 3, in the lead-up to their clash against Carlton.

Maybe I missed it, and maybe everybody I’ve asked missed it also, but nobody understood this 6.16pm unfurling.

The club marketed the time, but not the reason – and I know fans were unhappy with this time because they voiced their displeasure.

Now this likely doesn’t have anything to do with on-field performance, but I thought it was an interesting shift in psychology from a club that’d been challenged by their fanbase in 2021, who’d embarked on a journey of re-engaging with their lifeblood, only to be indifferent here.

Does it – among other things – suggest changing attitudes that, ultimately, speak to hubris?

When you look at some of these things in unison, does it illustrate an attitudinal shift?

Fremantle and Collingwood players react to their draw. (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

5. Not Preparing for the Future

In his three years at the club, McRae’s had the chance to blood youth and give them a good look at senior football, but he just hasn’t done so.

Given the midfield comprises a senior brigade of Scott Pendlebury, Steele Sidebottom, and Tom Mitchell, with Jack Crisp and Jordan de Goey not far behind, surely there should be a focus on bringing the kids through.

Look at the way Mick Malthouse phased in the likes of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan, Sharrod Wellingham, Ben Reid, Nathan Brown, etc, from 2006 – 2010, while losing veterans such as Nathan Buckley, Scott Burns, Paul Licuria, Shane O’Bree, James Clement, and Shane Wakelin.

The whole time, the Pies stayed in contention.

But in McRae’s time, nobody’s been given a solid apprenticeship. In fact, the kids are often the sub or the first subbed, and then usually the first omitted.

How has that impacted their development? Has it made them gun-shy? Has it affected their capacity to build endurance? Has it messed with their confidence?

At the very least, with the injuries in 2024, it would’ve been great to see any of these kids given a block of 4-6 weeks of football.

As it is, the Pies will go into 2025 with some potential hopefuls, but no firmer answers as to who will carry Collingwood into the future.

4. Lack of Adaptability (Defensively and Offensively)

Something that’s enjoyed a resurgence in the AFL this year is the return of the tagger – unless you’re Collingwood.

Look at the Pies’ Round 18 clash against the Bombers: Zach Merrett regularly terrorizes Collingwood and is Essendon’s chief playmaker.

Was he awarded any respect? Nope. Merrett hauled the Bombers over the line, was best on ground, and ended with thirty possessions.

Tag Merrett and that result’s likely reversed.

How about a week earlier against Gold Coast, when Noah Anderson amassed 39 possessions, Touk Miller 33, and Sam Flanders 31 – three midfielders collected 103 possessions.

There was no thought of possibly trying to shut any of them down.

Where’s the defensive accountability? It’s something they seemed to realize later in the season, as they began assigning Steele Sidebottom those sorts of roles.

Coach Craig McRae speaks with Nick Daicos. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

It’s not just tagging, either. Where else has lateral thinking been demonstrated?

With the side spluttering throughout the year, the most adventurous Collingwood’s brains trust got was to throw Jeremy Howe forward.

And that’s it.

At times in 2024, Collingwood’s midfield lacked Pendlebury, Jordan de Goey, and Tom Mitchell.

Even if there was a focus on sticking with senior bodies, why not opt for somebody like Isaac Quaynor – who struggled in defence – in the middle?

Darcy Moore looked lost for most of the year. Some will claim that’s a result of losing Nathan Murphy.

Murphy not being around doesn’t explain why Moore would be caught in no man’s land repeatedly. Why not throw him in the ruck – where his father won two Brownlows?

These are just examples.

With things going wrong on the injury front, the brains trust tried replicating existing structures with players who couldn’t provide the input needed – or were underprepared, rather than innovating and exploring alternatives to generate something new.

3. Loose Zones

Something that became common to see at Collingwood games was the opposition chipping their way through Collingwood’s zones with abandon.

It’s hard to understand why Collingwood players couldn’t impact contests the way they had the last two years.

Was it because the opposition was wilier? Was it because Collingwood players weren’t covering the ground the way they used to? Was it because they were poorly structured – or was it a lack of hunger?

I don’t think the coaching staff really knew either given McRae’s evident frustration in various press conferences.

You’d have to wonder just how much all the coaching reshuffling affected on-field strategies, with structures, intensity, and consistency depreciating as a result.

Nick Daicos celebrates kicking a goal. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

2. Not Protecting Nick Daicos Earlier

Opposition placed a lot of time into Nick Daicos. It became the key to beating Collingwood.

If Nick could manage 30+ possessions and a couple of goals, then everybody road his coattails, and the Pies would fire.

Shut him down, his teammates would look listless, and the team would be flat.

So Nick earned constant attention – and the protection that Collingwood afforded him? Nil.

Now, obviously, teammates tried to provide blocks etc. but it felt like sometimes the onus should’ve fallen on the coaching staff.

Why not occasionally throw him onto the wing where he’d have space to roam without constant scragging?

Obviously, this is something Collingwood realised too late because they started playing him at half-forward.

While there’s an argument to be made that players have to learn to shake tags, that only has merit when alternatives can compensate.

That just didn’t occur at Collingwood, which resulted in an impotent midfield.

1. Shutting Down Games

Collingwood’s famous for winning tight ones, but several times they went into shutdown mode much too early.

Anzac Day is a case in point: with six minutes left, Collingwood decided to defend a 1-point lead.

In other games – like against Fremantle, Carlton, and Sydney – they were over four goals up, then ground to a halt, and let the opposition run over the top of them.

This occurred often enough that it shouldn’t be dismissed as an outlier.

Collingwood fans might consider themselves unlucky – if they’d won one of their draws against either Essendon or Fremantle, they’d be in the top eight.

But the flip side of the equation is they’re lucky to have come away with wins against Hawthorn, Essendon on Anzac Day, Fremantle, North Melbourne, and Carlton – occasions where opponents all had a late shot to win the match, but which they blundered.

When Collingwood’s behind, they play with an abandon that overwhelms the opposition. That would seem to be the best defence of all.

But when they play negatively in whatever context, they become vulnerable.

After working cohesively for two years, Collingwood has fragmented in various areas, and that’s reflected in their performances.

Many will simply expect the Pies to bounce back in 2025, but if nothing else 2024 has raised a lot of questions.

Employing the same players, structures, and strategies, with only minor revisions, in 2025 just won’t cut it, so it’s unclear whether a quick renovation will be enough, and if they instead need to evolve.

Or the Pies risk being left behind.