A Grundy thread

[RudeBoy]

[K]

[Lazza]

[Presti35]

[masoncox]

[K]

^ Get with it, mc! P4S now wants to change topics to talking about Tim English! (Although the posts were originally in a thread titled "Grundy vs Mumford". ) He'll be very angry if we don't talk Tim English. But I reckon the English discussion is mainly between you and him.

[Pies4shaw]

No, let's be clear. I am quite happy to talk about Grundy at length with anybody who wants to present an argument with any basis in fact. You don't do that. Hence I now prefer not to engage.

My point about your last round of meaningless repitition of journalists' errors, of course, was that it concerned a pile of rubbish written after round 4 - twice-recycled by you, despite it being obviously a long out-of-date attention-seeking piece trying to create some controversy about the season before it had even properly begun. You can't just pick up individual bits you like within a larger pile of journalistic drivel and expect that people will think your argument is somehow stronger because there is someone else out there who has an equally simple view of things and a similarly limited acquaintance with the facts.

By all means, repeat the vaccuous nonsense that Grundy is frightened of Mumford - if you are silly enought to believe it - but put a reasoned argument of your own. Don't just rely on the views of other people who are plainly not up to the task. That's just wasting everyone's time - and our bandwidth.

[K]

Yep, your point was to shoot the messenger. You always shoot the messenger. This time it was Gleeson. But it could be anyone.

Do you really deny the factual stuff Gleeson wrote about Grundy vs. Mumford?

Gleeson: "... most notably he dropped an uncontested mark in front of Mumford at half-forward when Collingwood had momentum and a mark to him would have seen the ball kicked inside 50. The dropped ball went to the other end for a GWS goal."

Do you deny this happened?

Gleeson: "He had two marks for the game..."

Do you claim this stat is wrong? I haven't checked it. But it sounds right. I'd be surprised if Gleeson got that wrong.

Gleeson: "Grundy has little aerial presence around the ground for a man of his size. Collingwood needs its big men to play like big men, and Grundy presently is not."

Given he can't take contested marks, and even dropped many uncontested marks, dunno how you can deny this.

Gleeson: "Opposition teams are presently unconcerned at Grundy’s hitout numbers - they are routinely high - because they only worry if those hitouts translate to high clearances and for Collingwood they do not."

This is obviously true. You can of course attack the oppo for not caring about Grundy's hit outs... But do you really think you're better than all the oppo senior coaches?

[Pies4shaw]

You have no idea.

[K]

So you don't deny any of it?

I see you're trying to shoot me too.

[pietillidie]

People mature variably and footballers can hit challenging phases. For a player like Grundy, who has shouldered (possibly even internalised?) a lot of the pressure of a dysfunctional club, a new coach might be just the ticket. Give the bloke space to enjoy playing again.

If we didn't have him, rest assured we'd want him.

[Pies4shaw]

[think positive]

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

Some people need a scapegoat to offload the disappoint and frustration of the last 63 years on, and who better than a highly paid one now that our “rock hard training track” is off the hook

[K]