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.
This is a Collingwood Bulletin Board - use this forum for general, Pies-related topics. For other footy topics, use Nick's Other AFL forum, and for non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar. For non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.
piedys wrote:Not sure why Buckley started JDG as the sub, but we are paying the penalty now.
Changed the game when he came on for Frost off with concussion. Then when subbed on made an impact at every contest moving the ball forward. Would love to see him keep 35! (although I say that every year).
The stupidity of this comment can best be summed up by letting you in on how many possession DeGoey had during the period that he subbed in for Frost (a period of 20 minutes). Given the above comment, what do you all think the answer is? 10? 8? maybe 5 quality touches.
Would you believe he had ZERO possessions during his 20 minute period. He also had zero tackles! In fact, he didn't impact a stat sheet during the entire 20 minute period.
yin-YANG wrote:De Goey had 16 touches and 5 tackles with one goal in a low scoring affair. Pretty good contribution i believe from a sub. I would have had him starting ahead of Moore anyway - especially on a slippery wet night suited to inside players and runners.
Completely agree with this!
His stats for someone starting as the sub was impressive and indeed having him start on a wet night would have been ideal rather than having him as the sub. Simply Bucks made an error in having one extra tall for this game especially as a result of Marley's absence which was beyond his control however.
For those critical of us using De Goey as the sub last night, it's worth considering that the medicos/fitness staff may have identified in blood tests that his body was a little fatigued from so many consecutive senior games. This is most common with new players, until their bodies become accustomed to the rigours and routine of senior footy. I guess all I'm saying is that there are often a host of reasons for selection decisions, other than simply football form. One thing's for sure, he won't be the sub next week.
RudeBoy wrote:For those critical of us using De Goey as the sub last night, it's worth considering that the medicos/fitness staff may have identified in blood tests that his body was a little fatigued from so many consecutive senior games. This is most common with new players, until their bodies become accustomed to the rigours and routine of senior footy. I guess all I'm saying is that there are often a host of reasons for selection decisions, other than simply football form. One thing's for sure, he won't be the sub next week.
When you think about it, Blair was subbed last week against so had to play this week. Therefore the choice for sub this week was between De Goey and Fasolo and Fasolo was needed in the forward line, so therefore De Goey was the logical one to be subbed this week. Personally, I wouldn't be playing Blair, but the coaching staff obviously see more in Blair than I do, so having made that choice they need to go with it.
piedys wrote:Not sure why Buckley started JDG as the sub, but we are paying the penalty now.
Changed the game when he came on for Frost off with concussion. Then when subbed on made an impact at every contest moving the ball forward. Would love to see him keep 35! (although I say that every year).
The stupidity of this comment can best be summed up by letting you in on how many possession DeGoey had during the period that he subbed in for Frost (a period of 20 minutes). Given the above comment, what do you all think the answer is? 10? 8? maybe 5 quality touches.
Would you believe he had ZERO possessions during his 20 minute period. He also had zero tackles! In fact, he didn't impact a stat sheet during the entire 20 minute period.
People believe what they want to believe.......
Oh, do stop polluting the debate with factual trivia...!
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
