 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The_Staunton 
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Location: Hobart
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I'm all for throwing the toys out of the cot, but today showed what we are - a team that'll plod to 5-8 and be out by the time the Prelim Final is around. We've still to play the Dawks and Port, got smacked out by Freo, lost to Geelong. We've had two good wins (Sydney and North) but very few convincing 4 quarter performances.
To think with developing key position players (Keeffe, Frost and Grundy et al) we can win the flag is unrealistic. Even so - no Brown, Goldsack, Beams, Maxwell, Rusty or Reid is going to show our lack of depth. We've chosen to trade depth for kids, and it hurt us today.
We should have won today, I'd start my analysis with a terrible performance from Swan. As a leader he was lamentable. Adams is a poor player, but give him time. Jesse White continues Buckleys curse of trying to find a second tall (Dawes 12, Lynch 13 and now White).
We're 5-8, that's just how it is - if it wasn't this week, it'd be Hawthorn, or Gold Coast. Question is, have we got enough in this list to win a flag under Buckley in the future?
_________________
We just got nutted at the clearances... |
|
|
|
 |
Beast
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In all honesty guys, we are only huffing and puffing right now due to getting sucked in by a streak of a few lucky and uninspiring wins.
In reality we're not a legitimate challenger as the real things just don't drop games likes this no matter the personnel.
Yes the immediate future doesn't look too bad but my gripe and worry as it's been for a while has always been the fact we'll be ready to contend when the likes GC and GWS will be in full bloom........... |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | collie dog wrote: | | blackandwhite4life wrote: |
I don't want to hammer Adams like every one else as he does get in and have a go. But.......from day one I never liked the Heater trade. He looks an honest trier, whereas Heater was one of the best backman in the game. Never an even trade. |
You know what we miss most from Heater. His leadership. Yes, leadership! I watched some of the Giants win against Brisbane last night and every time I saw Heater (27 disposals by the way) he was pointing out to his young teammates where they should kick the ball, etc. He really seems to be relishing the respect he is getting as a leader up there. So we traded a damn good footballer and a real onfield leader in the bargain for a kid who can't dispose of the ball with any fluency. And while we are on the Shaws, Rhys starred again for the Swans yesterday. And we thought the trade we did with them was a success.  |
God, talk about rose coloured glasses and nostalgia. The guy was giving away 2 indefensible goals a week last season. He was a good player for us for a long time, but he'd run his race here. Given our small - mid back line stocks, I basically saw whatever we got for Heath as free talent. I still think Adams will be fine. He's a hard nut and he can certainly get the ball. His disposal seems to drop off late in games, which makes me think it's a fitness issue as much as anything. Why so many people are scapegoating him instead of about 15 others who were even worse is beyond me. |
Yep, wasn't a BOG performance but certainly had a go. |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I blame Bucks and the rest of the coaching staff. Nathan didn't have a single kick and Burns was unsighted all day. Don't get me started on Lappin, when was his last goal, hasn't kicked one in years. Other than a praise thread last week, when was the last time you heard about Ben Hart and pumper Harvey hasn't had a look in.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
can someone explain to me how we can play so poorly for four quarters and yet still only lose by 8 points? I'm completely baffled. I thought the Dogs played really well... I dunno I'm just lost for words.
The amount of times we broke clear, only for a bad possession, usually a kick either to the toes of the leading player or straight over their head. bloody frustrating.
must remember how inexperienced this side is. that was a bad loss though, down to 6th with the new filth and scum to come. not looking good at all.
side by side??
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: |
And if anyone tries to tell me Adams was good because he had 30 disposals, I'm gonna spew!
|
You'd better start chucking inky. Adams not only had 30 disposals, but kicked a goal and was instrumental in us getting 3 others. Sure, his wayward kicking is a concern, but often that's because he's getting the ball in such hard contested situations. He will get more composure as he plays more footy. I ranked him as our 3rd best, after only Cloke and Pendles.
Seriously, the vitriol directed to this kid who throws his body in fearlessly to get the ball out of packs is very disappointing from many of my fellow Nicksters.
If you want to find reasons for today's loss, you need look no further than the performances of Blair, Ball, Thomas and White. You can't have 4 passengers and win a game of football. Broomhead looked good when he first came on, but really failed to have an impact at all in the last quarter when his fresh legs should have been an asset.
I've said it before, but I seem to be on my own here, but I genuinely believe Ball is finished, unless it's wet under foot. He's just too slow and does not get enough of the ball any more. Josh Thomas, after 4 years on our list, is still a depth player imo. White should be used more as our 2nd ruck, and we should play one of Grundy or Witts, but not both. We are top heavy with all 3 big men in our team. |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| GoWoodsmen wrote: | | side by side?? |
We've lost before, and we will lose again, but never, ever question Side by Side.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | [quote="AN_Inkling"]
And if anyone tries to tell me Adams was good because he had 30 disposals, I'm gonna spew!
[/quote]
You'd better start chucking inky. Adams not only had 30 disposals, but kicked a goal and was instrumental in us getting 3 others. Sure, his wayward kicking is a concern, but often that's because he's getting the ball in such hard contested situations. He will get more composure as he plays more footy. I ranked him as our 3rd best, after only Cloke and Pendles.
Seriously, the vitriol directed to this kid who throws his body in fearlessly to get the ball out of packs is very disappointing from many of my fellow Nicksters.
If you want to find reasons for today's loss, you need look no further than the performances of Blair, Ball, Thomas and White. You can't have 4 passengers and win a game of football. Broomhead looked good when he first came on, but really failed to have an impact at all in the last quarter when his fresh legs should have been an asset.
I've said it before, but I seem to be on my own here, but I genuinely believe Ball is finished, unless it's wet under foot. He's just too slow and does not get enough of the ball any more. Josh Thomas, after 4 years on our list, is still a depth player imo. White should be used more as our 2nd ruck, and we should play one of Grundy or Witts, but not both. We are top heavy with all 3 big men in our team. |
Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: |
And if anyone tries to tell me Adams was good because he had 30 disposals, I'm gonna spew!
|
You'd better start chucking inky. Adams not only had 30 disposals, but kicked a goal and was instrumental in us getting 3 others. Sure, his wayward kicking is a concern, but often that's because he's getting the ball in such hard contested situations. He will get more composure as he plays more footy. I ranked him as our 3rd best, after only Cloke and Pendles.
|
I just can't agree and did not fit him into my best 5. His good (winning the ball was ok), but his bad was atrocious. Poor decision making, poor disposal, and in the last some very costly blunders. I don't think he was much better than Thomas or Ball, if at all.
Having said all that, I'm ok with playing him and I'm not writing him off as a footballer, he clearly is one, but he does have some major rough spots that need polishing. So yes, ok with playing him, but not alongside Ball or Thomas. There's reasons for picking any one of those three, but never a reason to pick all three.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: |
And if anyone tries to tell me Adams was good because he had 30 disposals, I'm gonna spew!
|
You'd better start chucking inky. Adams not only had 30 disposals, but kicked a goal and was instrumental in us getting 3 others. Sure, his wayward kicking is a concern, but often that's because he's getting the ball in such hard contested situations. He will get more composure as he plays more footy. I ranked him as our 3rd best, after only Cloke and Pendles.
|
I just can't agree and did not fit him into my best 5. His good (winning the ball was ok), but his bad was atrocious. Poor decision making, poor disposal, and in the last some very costly blunders. I don't think he was much better than Thomas or Ball, if at all.
Having said all that, I'm ok with playing him and I'm not writing him off as a footballer, he clearly is one, but he does have some major rough spots that need polishing. So yes, ok with playing him, but not alongside Ball or Thomas. There's reasons for picking any one of those three, but never a reason to pick all three. |
I agree completely with this in an ideal world, but who would you have played today given that Sidebottom and Beams were unavailable.
Kennedy? Is he better than Adams? He's probably an upgrade on Blair, but that's another issue.
Fasolo? Not really a mid.
Broomhead a full game in the middle? Is he ready for that?
Fact is, we're probably a 5-8 team that's a couple of injuries away from being a bottom 6 team.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
hermie 
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Location: melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 16 other teams were into Adams but i guess all the experts on here that are coached at afl level know better,give him time he will be ok |
|
|
|
|
Holbrook Bloke 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, but Holbrook beckons
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm sure if we look back at the posts prognosticating the future, most would have been happy that we made the finals, let alone be in the top 4 at the half way mark. So today was no reality check.
Can't believe all the vile being hurled at Adams. I must hve been looking at a different game because he was more effective than a good many team mates. He was involved in a few goals, kicked one and dug the hard ball out a few times. Losing wasn't his fault and I'm looking forward to his progress.
I thought we'd flog the dogs today but they brought their A game and turned us inside out out. And this was without Cooney and an injured Griffen much of the second half. I'm sure many players thought it was only a matter of time before the dogs got tired and they'd steamroll them.
Hopefully we can use this disappointment to do to the Hawks wa
hat the dogs did to us.
_________________
Jonno
Sydney Collingwood Supporters Club (Est 2003)
Camelia Grove Hotel - The best AFL pub in Sydney all season, not just the finals. |
|
|
|
|
Steve86
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
8 months younger and 15 games less experience averaged across the board. Shit game but we aren't out of top 4 chase we jus going to have play some good footy rest of year..
broom looked good when he got it |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MattyD wrote: | okay, I'm starting to calm down a bit. So back to my usual posts whinging about umpires and such.
We lost at the selection table.
Yes, quite a few experienced players did very little today.
But that backline looked ridiculous. Against almost any other team and we would been slaughtered.
It was embarrassing that the Collingwood crowd were getting so frustrated in the last quarter that players were just ignoring other players who had space and were running. This happened many times.
But a reality check is in order.
This is a new team. Like many of us said after the Freo game in Round 1. I had fully prepared myself for this to be a rebuild year. It's just since that game there has been steady improvement and we've won enough games to be in contention for Top 4. So our hopes have been raised.
But this is the reality. You can't say the season is over. That's just silly. The team that was out there today is not our best team. Clearly.
When we have our best team, we'll do better.
The umpiring was typical after quarter time. And was it my imagination or were the bulldogs playing pot-shotting our players all the time??? I think it made our players look a bit soft which is disappointing.
Positives for me were Jamie Elliot is a star. Brilliant.
Cloke, yes, kicked, six. But he only does that against poor opposition. He needs to kick six against the Hawks - then I'll be impressed.
And oh and anyone taking a pot shot at Collingwood supporters is being really unfair. We aren't the ones who were on the field and made the team lose today. And we have every right to be frustrated with the effort from players who should have done better. We all know who they are.
Bring on the Dawks. Anything could happen next week. Our club, coach and players need a fire cracker up their backside this week and hopefully they get it and come out and bloody win. |
Spot on post, and yes, we lost it at selection table, we cant leave out guys for a rest, like sidey, the sack, and beams, and still think we can just roll over and win easy, wont happen. God almighty, don't we miss Maxy down back, and reid cannot come in soon enough. Poor effort really, only cloke and ball, Elliott, had a real dip, too many loafers today. We must make round four changes next week, and maybe this is the wake up call we had to have, now we will throw everything against the dawks, reckon our guys will get a big rocket up em now, and so should the selectors too, never again must they coast easy in picking a team. Never again. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: |
I just can't agree and did not fit him into my best 5. His good (winning the ball was ok), but his bad was atrocious. Poor decision making, poor disposal, and in the last some very costly blunders. I don't think he was much better than Thomas or Ball, if at all.
Having said all that, I'm ok with playing him and I'm not writing him off as a footballer, he clearly is one, but he does have some major rough spots that need polishing. So yes, ok with playing him, but not alongside Ball or Thomas. There's reasons for picking any one of those three, but never a reason to pick all three. |
I agree completely with this in an ideal world, but who would you have played today given that Sidebottom and Beams were unavailable.
Kennedy? Is he better than Adams? He's probably an upgrade on Blair, but that's another issue.
Fasolo? Not really a mid.
Broomhead a full game in the middle? Is he ready for that?
Fact is, we're probably a 5-8 team that's a couple of injuries away from being a bottom 6 team. |
I agree that those outs made it difficult, and whatever we went with was going to be a ways from our best.
However, going with marginal players around the edges was the way to go, not playing Adams, and to a lesser extent Thomas, in important centre square roles.
I'd have picked Kennedy and Fasolo, with Kennedy rotating forward and middle and Fasolo and Elliott both spending some time in the midfield.
I'd have kept Broomhead as sub. Ideally, only one of Adams, Ball and Thomas would have played, but picking two (I'd have gone Thomas and Ball because we were already too young) and leaving Fas or Kennedy out would have been acceptable given the outs.
Is Kennedy "better" than Adams? Probably not. But he is quicker, offers more spread and can play midfield and forward, he is not locked into an inside midfield role as Adams is.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
