Last week on Channel Nine’s ‘Footy Classified’, Sam McClure posed that Collingwood were missing Mason Cox, prompting colleague Kane Cornes to reiterate one of his recurring criticisms: just how little Mason Cox statistically contributes to the Pies.
Although he polarises football fans, I don’t mind Cornes. I think he has the courage to speak his mind, whereas many other journalists play it safe. The problem with some of his more outrageous statements, though, is that he’ll champion them obliviously, but I think he’s missed the point entirely on Cox. To understand that, we have to reflect on the American’s career.
When Collingwood unearthed this 211cm behemoth, somebody bizarrely decided the best use of him was not to stick him directly in the ruck, as you would with anybody of that height and raw potential, but to groom him as a forward.
Now perhaps this was born out of necessity. Mason Cox arrived at Collingwood in 2015. At that time, Brodie Grundy and Jarrod Witts were just coming into their own, and sharing ruck duties. Where exactly did Cox fit in that particular hierarchy? Well, in the forward line, apparently.
Collingwood ruckman Mason Cox. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Cox’s heroics in the 2018 preliminary final – when he kicked three goals in the second quarter to blow the reigning premiers, Richmond, away – was the worst thing that could’ve happened to his career.
Everybody began looking at Cox as this prototype new forward, this monster who was just too big and too tall to contain. Commentator Bruce McAvaney waxed lyrical about it in typical McAvaney style. Post-game, then-Richmond coach Damien Hardwick talked about Cox being best on ground.
It seemed an amazing future awaited but, consequently, Cox’s output was sporadic.
The real problem is that Collingwood’s starting premise was flawed. If all it takes to become a key forward is height, then every club would go out there and find the tallest player they could. But while key positioners nowadays can range beyond two metres in height, they still need to have forward nous.
Cox’s output as a forward is exactly what you’d expect from a ruck resting up forward – spasmodic. Occasionally, he’ll have a big game, clunk a few marks, perhaps kick a handful of goals, but otherwise he’ll endure long, quiet periods where he struggles to meaningfully impact the game.
Compounding the issue at Collingwood during Cox’s apprenticeship was the Nathan Buckley gameplan, which had a proclivity to regress to slow, indirect ball movement, and then a mindless bomb into the forward 50 – often to Cox’s disadvantage. Frequently scragged, impeded, and blocked, he’d struggle to contest. If the ball hit the ground, he played exactly as you’d expect a 211cm-tall footballer to play.
It was a strange obstinacy at Collingwood to persist with Cox up forward. His few forays into the ruck showcased a natural finesse, which suggested there was untapped potential. When he was allowed to run unencumbered around the ground, he attacked contests with freedom and vigour he wasn’t enjoying as a forward.
If he was groomed purely as a ruck who might occasionally rest forward, who knows what might’ve been? But for a couple of years there, Collingwood had the All-Australian ruck in Brodie Grundy, and thanks to drafting that seems to criminally neglect key position players, a dearth of key position talls. After Grundy was moved out, Darcy Cameron became Collingwood’s preferred ruck option.
Mason Cox of the Magpies competes in the ruck against Ivan Soldo of the Power. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
So Cox has had to continue filling a role up forward, yet has never really been the priority target. That’s not a criticism of Craig McRae, but an observation. Often, you’ll see even a small forward, such as Jamie Elliott or Bobby Hill, playing as the forward leading out of the goal square, while Cox has played higher up.
Last year, as the season went on, Cox’s default selection fell into dispute. Some speculated he was rejuvenated in Round 23, in Collingwood’s clash against Brisbane, when he was the sub, then came on and sparked a mini-comeback with a belligerent and momentum-turning display in the ruck.
At the time, Cornes said being played as the sub was the kick up the butt Cox needed, but this is a gross misunderstanding of what happened.
Did playing as sub spur Cox on? Maybe. But it’s likelier Cox was moved into the position that he should be playing, and that’s why there was such a different output to what he’d been offering as a forward. It’s just thanks to what’s gone on at Collingwood, Cox is classified as a forward first, and a relief ruck second.
But rewind to Round 9, when Collingwood took on GWS, and Cox was forced to ruck due to Darcy Cameron’s absence. Cox accumulated 13 kicks, six handballs, nine marks, 24 hitouts, and kicked two snags. He was duly rewarded with a perfect ten in the Coaches’ votes.
Now would I expect that every week? No. But those figures demonstrate that playing as ruck can maximise Cox’s potential, rather than reduce his skillset to cameos as a forward. He’s had other similar efforts (including against Melbourne in a couple of Queen’s Birthday games) where he’s looked dominant as a ruck.
Still doubtful? Cox isn’t given another credit for Collingwood’s premiership assault. Although Darcy Cameron returned mid-season and resumed ruck duties, he struggled. After the Round 23 game, Cox then seemed to become the preferred ruck.
In the qualifying final against Melbourne, Cox ran at Max Gawn, planted a knee in his chest, and knocked him down at the first bounce – an act of aggression that was a statement of Collingwood’s intent. In that game, although Cox managed only nine disposals, he amassed 34 hit-outs to Gawn’s 31, and helped neutralise Gawn to some extent.
In the preliminary final, Cox collected 27 hit-outs to GWS’s collective 28, and although again he only managed another nine possessions, he did kick the vital goal that won the game for Collingwood.
Come the grand final, Cox gathered just the seven possessions, but managed 31 hit-outs to Oscar McInerney’s 28. There’s also a school of thought that when Cox wasn’t in the ruck, Brisbane would wrestle away the ascendancy.
Kane Cornes is right about one thing – it’d be great if Cox got more possessions. But this is where Cornes is stuck exclusively: looking at kicks and handballs, as if that’s a qualification of his total output. On ‘Footy Classified’, he said that Nathan Kreuger could duplicate Cox’s return. That’s definitely possible. In fact, Kreuger would potentially offer more as a forward.
But what Cornes ignores is Cox’s most important function: playing that ruck role, whether it’s as the primary or relief option. Already we’ve seen this year in Cox’s absence how the ringers Collingwood have tried – from Billy Frampton to Nathan Kreuger – don’t offer the same influence at ruck contests.
Cornes goes on about stats but keeps excluding the most important one: hit-outs.
I’ve felt for Mason Cox during his time at Collingwood. From the moment he appeared, I never thought he’d genuinely become a consistent key forward. Think about it: how many rucks have been effective as consistent forwards in the history of the VFL/AFL? Two or three? Paul Salmon? Peter Everitt? Maybe Peter Moore, if you really go back in time. Look at the calibre of players being cited. The rest have struggled, if not offered similar returns to Cox.
Look at clubs who are playing two rucks and asking one to be the forward – such as Fremantle with Luke Jackson and Sean Darcy; or even Melbourne last year with Max Gawn and Brodie Grundy. How’d the forward option fare? Pretty much the same as Cox?
Like most players, Cox has his weaknesses. He has games where marks just don’t stick. Sometimes, he struggles to get into the game. But part of this may be qualifiable with how he’s being played.
Looking at Jack Ginnivan’s comments earlier in the year about forwards at Collingwood having strict roles which sometimes saw opportunities evaporate, you can extrapolate that sometimes things simply haven’t fallen Cox’s way.
Sound like a rationalisation? Well, look at the sporadic output of Collingwood’s other forwards. Now this isn’t intended to excuse Cox unconditionally, but just that sometimes other factors might contribute to his low output. Of course, it’s much easier to criticise him and blame him.
Here’s something else to consider: as a forward, Cox has had to contend with problematic delivery. Also, I think he’s the most unfairly umpired key positioner in how often he’s not rewarded for being held and wrestled and blocked, and the gameplan (again, not a criticism) is not built around making him a one-out target.
As a ruck, though, he has incredible worth that Cornes (and Cox’s critics overall) undervalue.
Given his service to Collingwood, his role in their 2023 flag, and the injuries he’s incurred (playing football) and will carry for the rest of his life, Mason Cox deserves (at the very least) some degree of respect, rather than this constant derision.
Essendon Bombers
v
Adelaide Crows
AFL : Head To Head
Fri, 19 Jul 2024, 19:40
Greater Western Sydney Giants
v
Gold Coast Suns
AFL : Head To Head
Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 13:45
St Kilda Saints
v
West Coast Eagles
AFL : Head To Head
Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 13:45
Hawthorn Hawks
v
Collingwood Magpies
AFL : Head To Head
Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 16:35
Geelong Cats
v
Western Bulldogs
AFL : Head To Head
Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 19:30
Port Adelaide Power
v
Richmond Tigers
AFL : Head To Head
Sat, 20 Jul 2024, 19:30
Brisbane Lions
v
Sydney Swans
AFL : Head To Head
Sun, 21 Jul 2024, 13:10
Fremantle Dockers
v
Melbourne Demons
AFL : Head To Head
Sun, 21 Jul 2024, 15:20
Carlton Blues
v
North Melbourne Kangaroos
AFL : Head To Head
Sun, 21 Jul 2024, 16:40
* Odds Correct At Time Of Posting. Check PlayUp Website For Latest Odds
Think. Is this a bet you really want to place?
For free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au