This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd.
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast.
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd.
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast.
Funny, my first impression was the same as this, and then looked at the stats and pendles eff matched what we saw.
watched the game again closely last night and it was more obvious.
3votesjudd though will get looked after though.
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Pendles is better than Chud. We're in the minority though. Most people just write off my opinion as Pie fan bias. Mind you, the real best player in the AFL is young Gazza. Remember when he played a bad game or two at the start of the year and some idiots started to write him off and use this as "proof" that he was "carried and protected" at the Cattery. Idiots. He's just getting better.
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd.
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast.
Caught up with Alan Richardson last night at a function. Had an intersting conversation about the game. They set themselves to win and are pissed off at walking away without the four points.
"Fix the forward line, stop hitting the goalpost six times, and who knows what might happen in eight weeks? The Pies, meanwhile, threatened to break open this game on several occasions, but "woulda, coulda and might've" effectively means they didn't."
WTF is he saying. Haven't read the article and I won't. But the coulda, shoulda, woulda, applies equally to carlton as us, no? These guys have to put something to paper but if you analyse it, just that quote you have there, if I was marking it would be FAIL for a basis of an argument. Cam you're the teacher here what's your mark?
^^Yep, he's talking about Carlton woulda, coulda (no real shoulda there), but don't talk to him about Collingwood woulda, coulda, shoulda - even though we did still win Robbo and are in no need of it. Bizarre.
There's no point looking at missed opportunities to goal - we had more than they did. Look at the way the game was played. We were dominant all day, which is why we always had the answers - never headed. They had players out? Boo hoo, we had more. Our defensive and forward line are miles ahead of theirs, and we have more class, depth and pace through the middle (compare Judd's disposal to Pendlebury's).
And since when has Jarred Waite ever destroyed us anyway? He's no Cloke and more of a flanker than a true KPP. First Kruezer would make all the difference, now it's Waite? Time to realise the Blues are just not good enough. One or two players will not bridge the gulf.
The problem is (and people do it here on Nick's) that they simply look at total possessions and say, "He must have played a great game."
Swan got more possessions than any of our players yesterday, but would anyone seriously suggest he was in our best ten players. Of course not, his disposal was atrocious! Ditto Judd.
I watched the replay last night closely and counted Judd's possessions. He had 17 effective and 18 non-effective. There were five clear throws and hardly any of his kicks went to a team mate. Most of his possessions were in tight so no doubt that limits his effectiveness. But his kicking is poor and he has lost the pace that used to see him break clear and actually pass the ball cleanly. On the same token Swan had 31 possies and also was very inneffective at times with his kicks. Neither of them deserved 2 or 3 votes.
This is one of those times where reading '35 disposals' is misleading. Yes 23 of Judd's were contested but a 17 of those went to us or to ground and no team mate's advantage. Carlton may have been better for another player to have grabbed the ball. Another player who had the speed and skill to win a little space and time to get an effective possession. I sincerely believe Pendles is a better player than Judd. He is much more effective and his hurt factor by foot or hand is much, much higher. Judd has very little hurt factor anymore. He rarely kicks goals and keeps backing his straight line speed to break tackles before disposing of the ball. Far too often he gets caught and then handballs/throws the ball anywhere. His lack of speed means he also not carrying the ball much either. At least Swan carries the ball. Judd is not the player he was at West Coast.
Geez, you're firing on all cylinders today mate. Even if a little obsessed counting Judd's possessions.
Great post again. You are absolutely right about Pendlebury. He kicked two sensational goals as well - in fact he's just about our most reliable kick for goal.
And as for Judd and his throwing. If feelings could kill there'd be one dead Judd and three dead umpires during the game yesterday. How does he get away with it?
Heard on MMM this morning someone from Carlton being interviewed saying "the boys were shocked" not to have won. Better get used to it. I can understand disappointed, but shocked?
"The night is a very dark time for me" Chaz Michael Michaels
AN_Inkling wrote:^^Yep, he's talking about Carlton woulda, coulda (no real shoulda there), but don't talk to him about Collingwood woulda, coulda, shoulda - even though we did still win Robbo and are in no need of it. Bizarre.
There's no point looking at missed opportunities to goal - we had more than they did. Look at the way the game was played. We were dominant all day, which is why we always had the answers - never headed. They had players out? Boo hoo, we had more. Our defensive and forward line are miles ahead of theirs, and we have more class, depth and pace through the middle (compare Judd's disposal to Pendlebury's).
And since when has Jarred Waite ever destroyed us anyway? He's no Cloke and more of a flanker than a true KPP. First Kruezer would make all the difference, now it's Waite? Time to realise the Blues are just not good enough. One or two players will not bridge the gulf.
read his article. He actually thinks carlton goal kicking cost them the game. Not that our goal kicking cost us a 10goal win.
Read the article by Glen Mcfarlands. almost the opposite view point. Actually understood how good pendles game was and why.
Robinson has the blikers on. I reckon he had the article half written yesterday when the shaw info came up expecting us to loose.
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
didick wrote:Heard on MMM this morning someone from Carlton being interviewed saying "the boys were shocked" not to have won. Better get used to it. I can understand disappointed, but shocked?
Just goes to show they still think we are their bunnies. Must say, I wasn't sure they were wrong, until yesterday. What a fantastic group of footballers we have playing for us!
Even if a little obsessed counting Judd's possessions. 
If feelings could kill there'd be one dead Judd and three dead umpires during the game yesterday. How does he get away with it? 
