Post Match. Swans smash Pies. All comments, please.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

When Collingwood wins the hitouts (this week, 34 to 22), people try to say they aren't winning the hitouts to advantage. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts and the hitouts to advantage (this week, 9 to 4) people try to say they aren't winning the stoppage clearances. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts, the hitouts to advantage and the stoppage clearances (this week 30 to 23) people try to say they aren't winning the centre clearances. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts, the hitouts to advantage, the stoppage clearances and the centre clearances (this week 10 to 5), people start using the word "arguably" - because there is nothing intelligent left to say about who won in the ruck.

But, of course, "arguably" is the word used to denote that a journalist is about to say something that has no basis in fact. Hickey attended 70 ruck contests and won a quarter of them (Darcy Cameron and Blakey both did better, statistically, than Hickey). Grundy attended 54 and won half of them. A third of Grundy's hitouts went to advantage (just 1 in 5 of Hickey's did).

Hickey got thoroughly smashed in all of the rucking aspects of the game. However, Sydney has many better footballers than Collingwood does, so they got the ball more often, won [edit - ooops!] many more one-on-one contests around the ground (despite being thrashed in the contests at stoppages), outmarked Collingwood 95 to 69, outtackled Collingwood 82 to 69, had many fewer clangers (56 to 70), took 12 marks inside 50 to Collingwood's 4 (Mihocek, eg, did not take a mark for the entire game; Moore took 3 marks in defence - but none against an opponent) and consequently won the game easily.

This is no criticism of Grundy who's been a great player for us, but basically you can get a ruckman from anywhere these days. That's why ruckmen never go high up in the national draft and you have so many journey men ruckmen changing clubs. We got suckered in by Grundy's management who demanded a seven year contract for a player who could be washed up in 3-4 years time. Furthermore we gave up a player who kicks goals (Stephenson) and created a hole in our midfield by sending Treloar to the Western Bulldogs. All for a player who we could have traded to Adelaide for two high end draft picks. If we had Cox wouldn't be lingering in the VFL today. He'd be rotating with Cameron in the senior side and we wouldn't be losing anything in the ruck. And we would have another two quality youngsters at the club. Another grand stuff up by Ned Guy and his cohorts in the football department.

[Lazza]

Ned Guy should take the walk of shame. Such a pathetic effort without any intelligence or aptitude. Shocking waste of space

[BazBoy]

[Pies4shaw]

MatthewBoydFanClub, Collingwood probably should have traded Grundy for 2 first round draft picks (although, probably not, since that might have meant that we all continued to be subjected for years to the appalling spectacle of watching Treloar panic and run away from every contest). There's plainly no merit in having the best ruckman of the last 50 years if the rest of the team is, for the most part, an uncompetitive rabble. That said, the Club's decisions are the Club's decisions. Grundy can only be judged by how he performs week in, week out. The Club can be assessed on the contract.

Initially, the complaint about the contract was that it was too long. Now, though, it has morphed into a general whine that he isn't Dustin Martin, so his play isn't worth what we pay him. That might be true but it's scarcely his fault. He still turns up and does what he does, week in and week out. He leads the AFL for hitouts, he leads Collingwood for tackles (he's more than 20% ahead of our next best) and for contested possessions (he's 20% ahead of our next best), is second for clearances (behind only the Captain) is 5th for total disposals (behind two other multiple Copeland Trophy winners and Crisp and Maynard) and 6th for one-percenters.

So many things about Collingwood's on-field performance are excruciatingly poor at the moment. He isn't immune to all of that. But he's a damn side better than most of them.

[BEAMER09]

When Collingwood wins the hitouts (this week, 34 to 22), people try to say they aren't winning the hitouts to advantage. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts and the hitouts to advantage (this week, 9 to 4) people try to say they aren't winning the stoppage clearances. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts, the hitouts to advantage and the stoppage clearances (this week 30 to 23) people try to say they aren't winning the centre clearances. When it is obvious they're winning the hitouts, the hitouts to advantage, the stoppage clearances and the centre clearances (this week 10 to 5), people start using the word "arguably" - because there is nothing intelligent left to say about who won in the ruck.

But, of course, "arguably" is the word used to denote that a journalist is about to say something that has no basis in fact. Hickey attended 70 ruck contests and won a quarter of them (Darcy Cameron and Blakey both did better, statistically, than Hickey). Grundy attended 54 and won half of them. A third of Grundy's hitouts went to advantage (just 1 in 5 of Hickey's did).

Hickey got thoroughly smashed in all of the rucking aspects of the game. However, Sydney has many better footballers than Collingwood does, so they got the ball more often, won [edit - ooops!] many more one-on-one contests around the ground (despite being thrashed in the contests at stoppages), outmarked Collingwood 95 to 69, outtackled Collingwood 82 to 69, had many fewer clangers (56 to 70), took 12 marks inside 50 to Collingwood's 4 (Mihocek, eg, did not take a mark for the entire game; Moore took 3 marks in defence - but none against an opponent) and consequently won the game easily.

This is no criticism of Grundy who's been a great player for us, but basically you can get a ruckman from anywhere these days. That's why ruckmen never go high up in the national draft and you have so many journey men ruckmen changing clubs. We got suckered in by Grundy's management who demanded a seven year contract for a player who could be washed up in 3-4 years time. Furthermore we gave up a player who kicks goals (Stephenson) and created a hole in our midfield by sending Treloar to the Western Bulldogs. All for a player who we could have traded to Adelaide for two high end draft picks. If we had Cox wouldn't be lingering in the VFL today. He'd be rotating with Cameron in the senior side and we wouldn't be losing anything in the ruck. And we would have another two quality youngsters at the club. Another grand stuff up by Ned Guy and his cohorts in the football department.

That's a fair summary. I was one that didn't want to see Grundy go. Not sure about the 7 mill in 7 years but that's what we did and we kept him.

What we have learnt since is that you don't need a dominant ruckman to win a GF (e.g Tiges, Doggies, WCE) , just competitive with pretty good mids.

Good ol' Collingwood forever!!! (and not just Ned either)

[Lazza]

I must admit I wanted him to go to Adelaide and thought we could pick up another ruckman (nowhere near as good) to compete. Then they wouldn’t have had the debacle they did. But to the future we look.

[watt price tully]

[quote="Lazza"]Ned Guy should take the walk of shame. Such a pathetic effort without any intelligence or aptitude. Shocking waste of space

[Dave The Man]

I must admit I wanted him to go to Adelaide and thought we could pick up another ruckman (nowhere near as good) to compete. Then they wouldn’t have had the debacle they did. But to the future we look.

We Finally have a Gun Ruckman just to Trade Him Off and then people keep saying we don't have a Ruckman

[bally12]

OUT: Noble, Keane, Thomas, C Brown, Mayne, Henry
IN: Murphy, Roughead, MaCrae, T Brown, Kelly, Rantall

Noble - I know there's a lot on here that like Noble, but I just can't have him in my side. Ever. Nothing personal as I don't know the guy, but I wince every time he goes near the ball.
Keane - his 2nd efforts remind me of that recruit from the movie The Club who's stoned and looking up at the sky.
Thomas - one-dimensional, slow, can't kick, why is he still in the side?
C Brown - not up to it.
Mayne - the sideways and backwards man. The Swans never bothered with a man-on-the-mark when he had it, and he still went sideways.
Henry - this kid is as nervous as hell, and low in confidence. Buckley's instructions will do that to you.

What chance we'd go with these changes? Buckley's.

So the torp is back. Who's our torp man? Do we have anyone on our list that can kick a torp? Let's face it, we actually don't have footballers in our side, mostly a rag-tag bunch that played basketball as kids, some that can run a bit, some Irish that never kicked a footy until we put them on a plane, some tattooed wannabe hoods, and then there's Grundy.

[Lazza]

Henry - this kid is as nervous as hell, and low in confidence. Buckley's instructions will do that to you.

Absurd comment

[Magpietothemax]

Henry - this kid is as nervous as hell, and low in confidence. Buckley's instructions will do that to you.

Absurd comment

[think positive]

The whole team seems to be suffering from this

[Lazza]

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

Henry is fine. He is a skinny little kid who doesn’t have the physique to compete against the big boys in the AFL at the moment. When he does he’ll be a great asset for us because he is the one thing we currently lack, a good contested mark in the forward line who loves kicking a goal.

[RudeBoy]

Henry is fine. He is a skinny little kid who doesn’t have the physique to compete against the big boys in the AFL at the moment. When he does he’ll be a great asset for us because he is the one thing we currently lack, a good contested mark in the forward line who loves kicking a goal.

Spot on. The kid has all the skills, but is a boy competing against men atm. Next year, after a solid pre-season doing weights, he'll be an automatic selection every week.