hi,
i personally think the rocca brothers are a real assett to the team... Anthony is using his body nd really giving the other teams hell... He has improved so much and really knuckled down. HE has been best on ground nearly every game..
Sav is also improving as the weeks go on he just needs to hold his marks.. He is using his body and tackling really well.. He is improving so much... His goal kicking is also improving alot!! I just want to know what other collingwood fans think of the rocca boys..
ROCCA BOYS
Moderator: bbmods
-
AlfAndrews
Hello Nikki
I'm one of those people who've been guilty of slagging off the Rocca boys in the past but I've been forced to eat humble "pie" lately.
I used to think Anthony Rocca was a complete dud until I saw him play against Sydney at the SCG in the last match of 1998. He was brilliant that day. Then last year he emerged as a consistently good player. But I was convinced that he needed to play in defence, mainly because he couldn't kick goals to save his life. This year he has shown how versatile he is. He can play forward, defence or on the ball. I think he is as valuable a player as Nathan Buckley and that is no exaggeration. I still don't like to see him shooting for goal from close in. He actually kicks better for goal when he's at least 50 metres out. For some reason he keeps stuffing up the easy shots. He is also a good old fashioned Collingwood tough guy who can poleaxe an opponent (usually within the rules, more or less).
As for Sav. If you search this bulletin board you will find some pretty unfriendly comments that I've made about this guy from time to time. But his efforts against Adelaide and Carlton were superb. He probably won the Adelaide game off his own boot. And I thought his effort on Friday wasn't bad either. He still has a tendency to go missing occasionally but I now believe he is an essential part of the Collingwood line-up. Even when he is not kicking goals he is still doing a lot of excellent body work and, if nothing else, he will always keep the opposition's best defender occupied. And sometimes, if he's struggling up forward, he can always do some handy things if he's given a run on the ball. There was one match in 1998, against Adelaide at the MCG, when Sav started the game in the ruck and was clearly best-on-ground in the first quarter. Playing a kick behind the play he was picking up possessions at will. I think he appreciated being free of the constant pressure that he gets at full-forward. Then Shaw moved him to full-forward and he drifted completely out of the game - and we lost narrowly.
Yeah, the two Rocca boys are great players. Anthony is almost in the "champion" category. If he keeps playing the way he's been playing he will be a genuine contender for the highest individual honour in football - the Copeland Trophy.
------------------
**floreat pica**
I'm one of those people who've been guilty of slagging off the Rocca boys in the past but I've been forced to eat humble "pie" lately.
I used to think Anthony Rocca was a complete dud until I saw him play against Sydney at the SCG in the last match of 1998. He was brilliant that day. Then last year he emerged as a consistently good player. But I was convinced that he needed to play in defence, mainly because he couldn't kick goals to save his life. This year he has shown how versatile he is. He can play forward, defence or on the ball. I think he is as valuable a player as Nathan Buckley and that is no exaggeration. I still don't like to see him shooting for goal from close in. He actually kicks better for goal when he's at least 50 metres out. For some reason he keeps stuffing up the easy shots. He is also a good old fashioned Collingwood tough guy who can poleaxe an opponent (usually within the rules, more or less).
As for Sav. If you search this bulletin board you will find some pretty unfriendly comments that I've made about this guy from time to time. But his efforts against Adelaide and Carlton were superb. He probably won the Adelaide game off his own boot. And I thought his effort on Friday wasn't bad either. He still has a tendency to go missing occasionally but I now believe he is an essential part of the Collingwood line-up. Even when he is not kicking goals he is still doing a lot of excellent body work and, if nothing else, he will always keep the opposition's best defender occupied. And sometimes, if he's struggling up forward, he can always do some handy things if he's given a run on the ball. There was one match in 1998, against Adelaide at the MCG, when Sav started the game in the ruck and was clearly best-on-ground in the first quarter. Playing a kick behind the play he was picking up possessions at will. I think he appreciated being free of the constant pressure that he gets at full-forward. Then Shaw moved him to full-forward and he drifted completely out of the game - and we lost narrowly.
Yeah, the two Rocca boys are great players. Anthony is almost in the "champion" category. If he keeps playing the way he's been playing he will be a genuine contender for the highest individual honour in football - the Copeland Trophy.
------------------
**floreat pica**
-
AlfAndrews
P.S.
That reference to A.Rocca's ability to "poleaxe" an opponent has absolutely nothing to do with that ridiculous report the other night. That was as soft as chicken shit. Since putting up my last post I've heard that he got 2 matches.
What a load of bollocks. He got reported, basically, for spoiling. It should have been laughed out of court.
------------------
**floreat pica**
That reference to A.Rocca's ability to "poleaxe" an opponent has absolutely nothing to do with that ridiculous report the other night. That was as soft as chicken shit. Since putting up my last post I've heard that he got 2 matches.
What a load of bollocks. He got reported, basically, for spoiling. It should have been laughed out of court.
------------------
**floreat pica**
-
Lozza
Alf,
I think you should take a good look at the video. What Ant did was stupid and reckless, just as stupid as the defence they came up with "Blinded by the lights". What a load of crap. As if the tribunal would buy that, if they did it would only further tarnish the reputation of the vulnerable Docklands.
The fact that Ant took his eyes off the ball when he made contact with Ellis helped crucify him. Why on earth Ant resorted to a cheap shot like that when he has the ability, strength, technique and intimidation to deliver a perfectly legal shirtfront is beyond me. What he did was weak. I would much rather he clean up a player with a hip and shoulder as he did to Scott Wynd on Friday night. Now that was tough and brilliant! He should have pleaded guilty and got 1 week.
------------------
Long Live Collingwood!!!
I think you should take a good look at the video. What Ant did was stupid and reckless, just as stupid as the defence they came up with "Blinded by the lights". What a load of crap. As if the tribunal would buy that, if they did it would only further tarnish the reputation of the vulnerable Docklands.
The fact that Ant took his eyes off the ball when he made contact with Ellis helped crucify him. Why on earth Ant resorted to a cheap shot like that when he has the ability, strength, technique and intimidation to deliver a perfectly legal shirtfront is beyond me. What he did was weak. I would much rather he clean up a player with a hip and shoulder as he did to Scott Wynd on Friday night. Now that was tough and brilliant! He should have pleaded guilty and got 1 week.
------------------
Long Live Collingwood!!!
-
Sly
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 1999 8:01 pm
- Location: Australia
I seriously doubt that it was Anthony Rocca alone who came up with the "Blinded by the lights" defense.
Collingwood would have weighed up the best defense going into the Tribunal, so that excuse should be attributed to counsel, not Hollywood (Pebbles).
His defense should have been, "If I wanted to hit Ellis, he wouldn't have gotten back up." That worked for Greg Williams several years ago, (although I think Williams said "if I connected").
And if you saw the Manton-Lloyd duel, Manton gave Lloyd a few around the head-region which are part and parcel of spoiling the ball. You see that incidental contact every week.
It was an extremely soft suspension and you really have to regard that if Anthony wanted to perform a "reckless act" then Ellis probably would have lost his head in the encounter.
And I'll actually be interested toward the end of the Season if there are players who say they do momentarily get blinded by the lighting, but were apprehensive about mentioning it due to the ridicule.
At any rate, I've mentioned much of this in my Rant.
------------------
Sly LeKoupa.
The Last Remaining Bad Guy.<B>
The Collingwood Rant.
Don't believe the Facts until you've read the Rants!</B>
The Unofficial AFL Ranting Board.
Collingwood would have weighed up the best defense going into the Tribunal, so that excuse should be attributed to counsel, not Hollywood (Pebbles).
His defense should have been, "If I wanted to hit Ellis, he wouldn't have gotten back up." That worked for Greg Williams several years ago, (although I think Williams said "if I connected").
And if you saw the Manton-Lloyd duel, Manton gave Lloyd a few around the head-region which are part and parcel of spoiling the ball. You see that incidental contact every week.
It was an extremely soft suspension and you really have to regard that if Anthony wanted to perform a "reckless act" then Ellis probably would have lost his head in the encounter.
And I'll actually be interested toward the end of the Season if there are players who say they do momentarily get blinded by the lighting, but were apprehensive about mentioning it due to the ridicule.
At any rate, I've mentioned much of this in my Rant.
------------------
Sly LeKoupa.
The Last Remaining Bad Guy.<B>
The Collingwood Rant.
Don't believe the Facts until you've read the Rants!</B>
The Unofficial AFL Ranting Board.
-
eMmA