One helluva rant from Big Footy re: Collingwood

[DaicosMagic]

You know, nowadays, my memories of Collingwood are always tinged with a sense of disappointment. I mean, I always have a great time at the football, (and often regardless of the result). I meet friends, relatives, have a pre-game chatter, watch the match, shout at some opposition, indulge in a post-game aftermath with the aforementioned crowd, and there it is - usually the best day of my week.

I can honestly say I've experienced that feeling, one time or another, in every facet of my life - school, exercising, playing sports, going out, sex, even everyday things like having breakfast or brushing my teeth or shaving. Every now and then I've gotten that feeling of, Let's get it over with so I can get on with what I actually want to be doing.

Supporting Collingwood, going to the football, has been the only exception - even when we've been tragically bad. Even when I've sporadically taken my breaks, that's because I've become too involved and exhausted myself mentally and emotionally (and, to a lesser degree, physically), as opposed to being tired of it. Really, it's the only thing which has completely avoided that syndrome.

Until now.

When I was young, when I'd just begun to follow Collingwood, there was a sense of greatness about them. Simply, they seemed bigger and better than everybody else. Back then, that . . . aura was intangible. Now, in retrospect, I wonder if it wasn't generated by the fact that we lead the competition in Premierships.

As I got older and became more cognizant of facts - namely statistics and results - I was amazed to learn that our then-record of 13 Flags had been accomplished by 1958. I've mentioned this before, but that really is astonishing - 13 flags in 66 years of competition. And if you go back to 1936, we had 11 flags in 44 years - one every four years!

Anyway, the 1958 cut-off meant if I was looking through a book which detailed the Grand Finals, any time I found ourselves in one after that year, we were bound to lose - and when I write bound to lose, you have to realize that I'd be looking at the quarter-by-quarter scores for the first time. I'd be experiencing the game for the first time, so it was completely new to me.

Unfortunately, the final quarter always had us losing. I really couldn't understand it. I mean, there were occasions I'd look at scores - like the 70 Grand Final - where you'd think there was no possible way we could lose the game. But that wasn't to be the case. As an aside, if I could experience that sense of disbelief and dislocation just from looking at the quarter-by-quarter scores, I wonder how intense it was emotionally for people who experienced it.

Another time, I remember seeing a picture of the celebration from the 1966 Grand Final, seeing Darrel Baldock holding the Premiership Trophy aloft while in a Collingwood jumper. There was one, I thought. Uh uh. I was promptly informed by one of my brothers that a Grand Final tradition was to swap jumpers.

Then came the Hafey years, which was the time I really became sentient about football, when I really begun to understand the game, get to know the players and their abilities, and when support became about more than just following a name - which is really the case with younger kids (or bandwagon supporters).

It was, I believe, the worst time to really become intricately and emotionally involved with Collingwood. You had 1977, 1977 again (and throw in Phil Carman's suspension as a contributor to losing those Grand Finals), 1978 (when the side was supposedly over-trained and failed in the Preliminary Final), 1979 (Wayne Harmes knocking the ball in from over the boundary), 1980 (a record thrashing), and 1981 (leading by twenty points late in the third quarter, only to let Carlton get the last two; we'd also beaten them twice that year - if memory serves, by one point at Victoria Park where we'd come back, and by 57 points at Optus Oval, Daicos kicking 7 (I think it was) against Bruce Doull).

That's why I'm so harsh on our failures know. I've already experienced what losing can do, that despite all the pomp and promise in the world there's no guarantees that we'll ever get another chance. I mean, if I recall correctly, on the 1981 Grand Final podium Peter Moore (who'd earlier thrown his runners-up medal into the crowd, this act causing the abandonment of the practice of handing out those medals) vowed Collingwood would keep coming back until they'd won one.

A year later, Moore led a coup in which coach Tommy Hafey was sacked, and the club imploded, finishing 10th. Another year on and Moore himself was gone and the club in tatters, financially, politically, and professionally. So, I mean, that vow sounded great, but did it actually really mean anything in the end? Did they keep coming back until they won one?

The only players from that generation of Collingwood who did were Tony Shaw, Peter Daicos, and Dennis Banks - and it took another nine years, four coaches, three administrations, the suggestion that the club wrap-up (read: fold) when they were essentially bankrupt, and God knows how many players. I think this illustrates that you have no real control over your fate - no control other than the fight to shape it to your will.

Which we kept failing.

Part of the reason we did was our tightness with our purse-strings. We usually recruited one or two good interstaters, but never really went after big names. In Hafey's time (78, I think it was), we could've landed Bernie Quinlan if we'd really thrown the money around, (an additional $3000, if you believe former president's Al McAlistair's account). We didn't, and while I don't know if he would've made a difference to those losing Grand Finals, you at least should be giving yourself every best chance of winning them.

Consequently, our failures lead to the era of The New Magpies (in 1983, I believe). They promised to spend money, to buy the players that would deliver success. Sounded good to me at the time. I didn't care if that was the only way we were going to make it happen - it was legal. (And it was working for Carlton).

Okay, but now we run into a series of problems: the administration of The New Magpies blew the chance to land experienced coach John Kennedy, and instead secured SANFL Port Adelaide coach John Cahill for his first VFL gig. Cahill did okay, he even got us to the finals in 84 (and to that record-breaking 20 goal-plus loss in the Preliminary Final against Essendon), but his tenure was only two years before he got homesick (or something like that) and returned to South Australia.

Then there were an assortment of high-priced recruits, most of whom which misfired. Amongst the names were players like Greg Phillips (good, but he cost $400,000 and stayed only four years), David Cloke, Geoff Raines, Mike Richardson, Gary Shaw, John Annear, Glenn McClean, Brian Taylor, and the list goes on. Of these guys, David Cloke was exceptional, Taylor, Raines and Richardson gave us decent service (but the latter two left when all the players were asked to take a pay-cut, so screw them) while the rest were money-pits. Sure, they might've had a good game here and there, but that's hardly a solid foundation for the future.

The recruiting was also extremely redundant. One example is we had Mark Williams and Peter Daicos as centermen. So we busted the bank to get a couple more in Raines and Richardson. It was insane. We just stockpiled for several positions while others (like the ruck, Cloke having to fill in just about full-time) were left neglected, (and I believe we could've pursued Justin Madden as he left Essendon, but were deemed to have good ruck stocks - who, exactly, is beyond me).

Unsurprisingly, the club was brought to the brink of ruin, Bob Rose was virtually coerced into becoming senior coach in 85, and in 86 the players were asked to take a 20% pay-cut to keep the club alive. As mentioned, Raines and Richardson balked and ended up at Essendon, while we ended up with Peter Bradbury, (who was actually pretty instrumental in Essendon's 84 Flag).

I'll say one thing, though: this chaos laid the nucleus for our 1990 Premiership, and from about 1986 (after that pay-cut, effectively) to 1991 Collingwood reinvented themselves to the extent that I thought they'd reinvent the Collingwood of (very) old. We'd learn, we'd have a dynasty, and we'd win flags - plural.

Leigh Matthews, who became senior coach early in 1986, molded the team in his own image - tough and uncompromising. Then there was our recruiting, which was smart and selective, and our cultivation of talented and classy youth through the Under 19s. For once, we seemed to be taking heed of what we needed for the future.

All this led to the flag in 1990, and right then I thought we could've enjoyed the sort of dynasty Hawthorn had through the 80s. After all, the only players in our side over 25 were Shaw, Daicos and Banks. We had the team for the future, a team - if managed properly - which could've only gotten better.

But it wasn't to be.

We had ~

~ a president who talked too much in Alan McAlistair, who continually made stupid remarks, and who was eventually gagged by the administration, (or that's the way I remember it).
~ truly insane and arrogant recruiting and drafting which included:
* taking Barry Mitchell in the draft just so Carlton wouldn't get him; Carlton did eventually, although the top-end of Mitchell's salary remained in our cap. In any case, when Mitchell was at Collingwood he could barely get game-time. I recall a headline which proclaimed something to the effect, Collingwood can fit Barry Mitchell in their salary-cap, but not in their 18.
* we also drafted Gerard Healy after he'd retired; he never played, (although he might've had he been drafted by Carlton). What was the point, anyway, in an era of youth? It might've only been our last pick which was used, but back then the draft wasn't as exact as it is now - who knows who we might've landed? Maybe nobody, but we should've given ourselves that chance.
* taking Brett Chalmers in the draft after he said he wouldn't come down. He didn't, we were perceived to have manipulated the draft (in telling Chalmers to say that so clubs before us wouldn't select him) and Chalmers was banned from playing with us (for two years, I think it was). He later transferred to Adelaide when they came into the competition.
* sacking Peter Daicos, supposedly due to age and injuries, and then replacing him a year later with Dermott Brereton.
* recruited Gary Pert by essentially financially extorting Fitzroy; Pert had just had a knee reconstruction and Collingwood said to the Roys, Here's $100,000 - bank that against Pert coming back, which gamble are you going to take? Now I have nothing against Pert, he was a pretty good player for Collingwood, but . . . we had a defense which contained Craig Kelly, Michael Christian, and the very underrated Ronnie McKeown, and behind them the likes of Jon Ballantyne (added in the same year as Pert), Jason McCartney, Mark Richardson, Len Pascoe, and Glenn Sandford. I know some of those guys didn't exactly have long and distinguished careers (or didn't even come close), but at the time they were viable long-term options, so why the hell were we adding yet another key defender, this one expensive and with a dodgy knee? It's more of the redundant stockpiling I've already mentioned.
* drove Jason McCartney from the club due to some difference with Leigh Matthews. I think McCartney was trying to get a huge offer from the debuting Fremantle, or was using them for leverage or something like that, but he ended up leaving and later claimed there was an air of stagnation at the club.
* flicking Brenton Sanderson to Geelong, which Matthews (during his stint as a commentator for 7) later admitted was premature.
* invented the most insane method possible to bring Nathan Buckley down from Brisbane involving naming 10 Untouchables Brisbane couldn't pick, (and I believe McCartney was on that list). Supposedly, when Brisbane chose one of our premiership heroes in Craig Starceivich, it fractured the morale of the club. Brisbane also asked for Mark Fraser, who refused to move; but unhappy that he was being bandied as trade-bait, he went to Essendon.
~ a coach who was acting increasingly bizarrely with his player management. In 1990, Graham Wright came runner-up in the Brownlow Medal by playing on the wing, (and probably would've won had it not been for a mid-season pole-axing at the hands of Fitzroy's John Ironmonger, an incident which had him in the wilderness for about a month). After 90, he rarely played there again, instead coming off half-back. On another occasion, I recall Nathan Buckley being dragged to the back-pocket to tag Wayne Schwass.
A lot of this is ground I've already covered, but I list it now to illustrate that people can run around saying the club knows the best, that the people in charge know best, and that's something you'd really like to believe but . . . well, it's not always the case. I think some times you get this sort of behavior out of pure idiocy, out of irrationality or whatever, but some times you get it because the people in charge have become too close to the situation to see objectively.

Also, this shows a pattern of self-destruction which tells us something very, very important - we don't just bungle Grand Finals. Administratively, we've also had occasion to be totally inept - and not just once or twice, but regularly. In fact, it happens as regularly as clockwork.

We did it years ago when we drove away Bob Rose from the club, Ron Todd and Des Forthergill (although the latter eventually returned) following, we almost drove away Len Thompson and Des Tuddenham in the early 70s (and then did so later anyway), we sacked Daics (and which other club treats their champions and legends as poorly?), we sacked Damien Monkhorst in 2000 and then lamented the lack of a ruckman, the list goes on because the phenomena repeats itself.

Then there's our drafting - taking Barry Mitchell, taking Gerard Healy (albeit he came with our final pick), taking Brett Chalmers when he said he wouldn't come down (and didn't), taking Danny "Who?" Roach, and often - in the modern era - taking players some experts claim wouldn't go for another round of picks.

And, finally, there's the trading, repeatedly picking up the wrong players, crippled players (with no disrespect to those guys), players on one leg. Then there's others - champions - we fail to secure, or refuse to even try to secure.

In the modern era there's been names like Aaron Hamill, Fraser Gehrig, Heath Black, Leigh Colbert, Nick Stevens. I'll admit, I didn't want all of these guys, (and probably only really wanted Nick Stevens), but I believe we pursued the lot of them and failed.

It's unbelievable because it seems obvious we have absolutely no idea of market value. We traded Clinton King and Pick 3 (Aaron Fiora) for Steve McKee and Pick 7 (which became Danny Roach). Okay, firstly, don't worry about the guys involved in that deal, because my question is why on earth do you trade a number three pick unless you're asking for a gun? And if you're not, and especially considering that you're rebuilding, why aren't you using that pick to land a Pavlich or Haselby from the draft?

Then there's Heath Scotland, who we rated only worthy of a Number 34 pick (Brent Hall), Mal Michael and Pick 22 (to become Richard Hadley) for Jarrod Molloy and Pick 44 (traded to Geelong for Carl Steinfort, Geelong using the pick on Josh Hunt).

From all these draft contrivances, you know who's still playing on the Collingwood side? Brent Hall, and that's it. Molloy's retired, Steinfort was delisted, McKee was delisted, Roach retired, and meanwhile on the flip side, Clinton King's delisted, Aaron Fiora's reinventing himself at St. Kilda, Matthew Pavlich and Paul Haselby (one of whom should've been the third pick) have been All-Australians and are thriving at Fremantle, Hadley's thriving at the Brisbane Lions, Josh Hunt's thriving at Geelong.

I'm not writing this to deride the current Powers that Be at Collingwood, but to illustrate that these are patterns we continually repeat. The only time we didn't was between 1986-to-1991, and that should've led to a new era other than for our innate Collingwoodness which effectively brought us down.

And you know why?

Because we have absolutely no sense of proportion at Collingwood. We're not the greatest. We're not even the second greatest. If you look at total flags, those honors belong to Carlton and Essendon. If you look at total flags in the modern era, well, there's a host of teams in front of us.

The title of being the greatest is something you have to earn, and one you have to fight to keep. Some times I wonder if our lack of achievement isn't partly because of this delusion. After all, why fight to win (or why fight for anything?) when your masses continually proclaim you're the greatest? What is there to win? What is there to earn?

This lack of perspective also applies to the teams we've fielded, guys who are meant to go out there and do it for the jumper. It's always astonished me that this attitude's prevailed over the years - throughout Collingwood's 113 year history - when the team hasn't. I mean, how damn often has the team done it for the jumper since 1958? Go further back to 1936 and we have three flags (53, 58, and 1990) in 69 years! Isn't this proof that while this philosophy is imbued with a sense of nobility, it's misguided? That it's not enough?

And yet we keep fielding these ordinary players, which is blatantly the case today. Look, I have no disrespect for these guys who've made it to AFL level; I even understand Malthouse's philosophy that these guys are part of a team, and thus individually mightn't have to be the greatest, but collectively are contributors. But we've proven it over the years, over our history, that battling isn't enough. That we need more. A 14-25-1 Grand Final record doesn't lie.

Following the debacle which was the 2003 Grand Final, Gunner suggested to me that Malthouse would now clean out all the squibs from the list just like he did with the West Coast Eagles following their 1991 Grand Final loss to Hawthorn. I actually took heart from this; I thought . . . well, at least it's something. At least the chaos is creating something.

The following year we still had largely the same list.

So then I just thought to myself that the implosion which was 2004 would expose these guys, would put these guys who didn't stand up in the absence of the usual suspects out there for all the world to see, and then we'd see changes.

Uh uh. Two years on from the disaster of the 2003 Grand Final, a year after a season in which our second tier players did pretty much nothing in the absence of our stalwarts, we still have largely the same list.

Oh, sure, you can throw in stellar recruits such as Chad Morrison and Blake Caracella. I have nothing against these guys . . . although I tell a lie a little in regards to Morrison. I have nothing against him individually or professionally, but it seems Malthouse had no trouble in working out this convoluted deal to bring him to Collingwood, and yet couldn't manage the same with Nick Stevens. End of that little tirade.

As far as Morrison and Caracella go, somebody optimistically pointed out that while these two are playing, at least two of our duds won't be, and, well . . . you'd like to think that, wouldn't you? But what if these two displace prospects, guys like Rowe and Maxwell, while the duds remain? You don't want that to happen, but hasn't it already over the last five years?

For me, it's frightening. Especially now that Malthouse is entering his sixth year as coach of Collingwood. There's nothing specifically extraordinary about that figure other than to suggest it's a length of time which can threaten sameness, where familiarity can cause favoritism, where you can lose that sense of urgency you have in the early years under a new coach.

Back then, back in 2000, 2001, there was HOPE. I'm not saying there isn't now (well, I hope not), but back then we could look forward with unsullied optimism and faith. Now, we've been tainted, we've been . . . poisoned by consecutive Grand Final losses, list mismanagement (you'll never convince me getting rid of Scotland and Betheras was a good move, even if Betheras hasn't reappeared in the AFL scene), and trade implosions.

The only hint of taint we had back in, say, 2001, was that King-Pick 3/McKee-Pick 7 (Danny Roach) deal. However, at that time, each player we got out of that deal could still prove themselves, could still make themselves worthwhile contributors at Collingwood (and McKee was serviceable), so there was light at the end of the tunnel - or at least a tunnel, which no longer exists today.

Then there was our trading that year, particularly netting Carl Steinfort, Brodie Holland, and James Clement so cheaply. Then there was Wakelin very low in the draft and while Jarrod Molloy was too expensive, at least (you could argue) it was counter-balanced by the cheapness of securing Clement and Holland. I mean, I actually started to think . . . Hey, we're getting on top of things.

Because we rarely are. There's our Grand Final record, our trading, recruiting, our drafting. Somewhere along the line we begin misfiring in just about every aspect of football operations. You know, we laugh at St. Kilda for their tendency to periodically implode, but we do it also. The difference is St. Kilda do it in one big bang while we build up to it, we have backfires which lead up to ONE BIG BANG.

But in 2001 I believed things might finally be beginning to change, that a new era might be cultivated the way it should've following the 1990 Premiership success. We blew that chance, we ultimately turned that chance into Hiroshima (and again, the misfires throughout the 90s leading to 98-99, finding ourselves suddenly mired in crap), but I thought we might have something here.

Then, well, I don't think people truly appreciate the array of screw-ups which have depreciated the club - the retirement of Danny Roach, (there goes that number 7 pick - again, how are Haselby and Pavich doing?), the 2002 Grand Final loss, losing Nick Davis for virtually nothing (we should've taken a stand like Port Adelaide did with Stevens), the 2003 Wizard Cup Grand Final loss (and don't tell me it's just a fluff competition; tell me a supporter who didn't want to win it), the recruitment of Jarrod Molloy (loved him, but too expensive - especially considering he played only three years, the last two injury-riddled), the 2003 Grand Final loss, screwing-up in getting Nick Stevens (including giving up Heath Scotland for a low pick), the delistment of Steve McKee (signifying the final failure of that original ill-fated swap), and missing out on an array of other high-profile trades.

I'm sure that some will say that this is all part and parcel in running a football club, but the way I look at it . . . hey, if you make a mistake, that's one thing, but if you repeat the same mistake over and over, then that borders on dereliction - not specifically on the behalf of this Administration, but on Collingwood throughout our history, and especially the last 70 years of it.

Others may counter by pointing to our sponsors, to our profits, to the Lexus and whatnot, and that's all great, it really is, but if you draw a line between our accomplishments and our failures (as I've listed them) you're going to realize something very important: all our successes have been off-field, all our failures on-field (or pertaining to on-field - and isn't that where we follow the team?).

Then there's also aspects of 2005 which aren't encouraging. I have every confidence in the likes of Bucks, Burns, Licuria (despite that his kicking remains dubious), Rocca, Clement, Wakelin, etc., guys I refer to as the Old Guard. But I have precious little in the next generation, and that doubt isn't even entirely their fault.

It's my old complaint of why aren't they playing? Look at Alan Didak, taken at Number 3 in the 2001 National Draft, and he remains a midfield novice. Meanwhile, Chris Judd, taken Number 3 in the 2002 National Draft, won the 2004 Brownlow Medal. People might say you can't compare any young guy to Judd, but the point is Judd's been given the chance! What about Didak?

Then we have Luke Ball, taken Number 2 in the same draft as Judd, now an integral cog in St. Kilda's midfield, (and I'll note that I'm omitting Luke Hodge from this list, but only because he's been troubled by Osteitis Pubis). Fast forward another year, and we have the likes of Adam Cooney, Farren Ray, and Andrew Walker - taken in the 2003 National Draft - starting to play in the midfields of their respective sides. Add to them guys like Nick Dal Santo and James Kelly, taken lower in those drafts, who are vital cogs in their sides' respective engines.

But Didak?

Sure, there's the argument that Malthouse is protecting a physically immature player, shielding him from the rigors of senior football, but now look at the irony; Didak hasn't played in 2005 due to minor knee surgery. Last year, he missed a block out of the second half of the season due to a broken jaw.

My point is you can't shield players from some things. Okay, if they're a praying mantis, like Guy Richards, I can accept that they're going to be protected from senior football until they put on some weight and bulk. But that hasn't seemed to be the case at Collingwood - just about everybody seems to serve a four year long apprenticeship, (although I'm generalizing a little with that figure).

Then there are those who simply haven't gotten their chances. In 1999, Rupert Betheras was sixth in the list of possessions at Collingwood, and looked a certain midfielder for years to come. But Malthouse then rarely used him again in that capacity, instead opting for the likes of Mark Orchard and Andrew Dimattina in the center.

I'm sure there are people who'll argue that I should look at the positives, at the potential in the youth at the club - players like the Clokes, the Shaws, Rowe, Walker, Richards, Fanning, etc. - and that come 2026 (or by whatever time they've been blooded and cultivated) we'll be certainties for a flag.

That's great, it really is, and in that regard I'm full of optimism faith, but you know what?

Right now, in this very moment, I don't give a ********.

I'm so sick of tomorrow, because after a while that's all you hear: We're rebuilding, we're looking to the future, he'll be a great player (as opposed to he is), he'll get his chance, this, that, the kitchen sink, and on and on it goes.

Eventually, inevitably, you have to draw a line in the sand and say: Here we are.

The rest is just such a whirlpool of bull******** you get caught in and that you perpetuate until there's a violent enough shock - like yet another total implosion - which jolts you out of it. That's what happened through the 90s; it wasn't until 99 that we woke up to ourselves. Before that it was 1982. Before that it was 1976. And it goes on and on back through our history.

Thinking about it, I believe the problem is that when Jock McHale coached the club, the administration were content to sit back and let him do his thing. After all, here's a guy who coached us for 38 years and 8 premierships (and 17 Grand Finals). He must've been an almost omnipotent power at the club, a figure who - unwittingly or not - diminished the influence (or the requirement for the influence) of the Administration.

But then he was moved on in 1949-50, and now the Administration had to again think proactively, and they couldn't. It'd been too long since they knew what it was like to struggle, it'd been too long since they'd had to help lead the club to the top. Effectively, they were retarded by their own success, so while other clubs had had administrations which had run them since their inception, we had one (or the requirement of one) which was just beginning then and there, putting us years and years behind the competition - and it's shown since that point.

Now, today, this very day, things may be superb off-field, and I really credit the likes of Eddie McGuire and company for resurrecting the club from the ashes it'd been razed to following the 90s. Okay, I really want to emphasize that, because I don't want hate-mail or whatever from people saying, How can you bag today's administration? I'm not. I acknowledge they've been awesome in making the club what it is.

However, God himself could be in charge of the Administration and it's not going to matter if they don't recognize there's a serial pattern of self-destructive habits which stops this club from accomplishing, from becoming the best. These are problems I've rambled on and on about, problems which have always put us a step or two behind our competition, which have crippled us when it really matters, which have contributed largely to the reason we have 25 Grand Final losses and one tie as opposed to only (only in comparison) 14 victories.

All I'm saying is maybe it's time these things were finally addressed and remedied instead of repeated. And that's not an idle threat, that's not over-dramatization, because we've repeated a lot of this crap already in the era of the new millennium, and the question is . . . just how long can we keep doing it?

What's it going to take for us to learn?

And then when are we going to do something about it?

- Sly


http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157522

[BHPIE]

SPOT ON DM.

[Your Joking Me!!]

omg...
wayyyy too much time on their hands!!!

[3rd degree]

Con Big Wig are u okay I repeat are u okay?

[Gunder]

Hey I stole that from another site and posted it on Bigfooty

[3rd degree]

that pathetic low-life wanker when are you going to meet up with Con Big Wig?

[Mike]

Sly, the author of that rant, is one of Nick's oldest members, and, as owner of the appropriately entitled web site 'The Collingwood Rant' (R101) - http://rant.magpies.net/, is also one of the foundation member of Magpies Net. (Magpies.net was formed sometime in 97 or 98 with the foundation members being Nick's, EB&W and The Collingwood Rant)

Glad to see that your old negative self is alive and well Sly. I certainly wouldn't recommend that you look at the positives... in fact if you did I'd have to report the post to the moderators as a forgery.

[Nath]

And people call 3rd Degree, myself and Cam cynical and bitter......

[clokeysrevenge]

Could not agree more. I think, and I am loathe to say it, its 100% spot on in all aspects,
Wish it werent.

[clokeysneighbour]

GULP!!!!!

CUPPA TEA ANY-ONE????

CYA AT THE CRICKETERS!!!!

BRING ON ROUND1

[David]

OK just to get an idea of how massive that was over 5000 words, about 4 or 5 times as long as a normal school essay..... the dude can either type really quickly or he worked on that for weeks.....

of the actual content, its just whinging really, a rant is actually a pretty fair way to describe it.....

[Joel]

Bloody hell that was long.

Pretty much spot on though.

[Clokey]

A few contradictions with his trade complaints.

[Johnson#26]

Great stuff as usual from Sly. How does he do all that work though? It must have taken him weeks!

[Gunder]