Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

I dare say they have cost us by being in the team. ie. poor attack on the ball very poor disposal etc etc.....

MarkT made an astute observation in another thread in GD that MM needs to use Shaw better.

He's one of a handful of players we have with genuine pace and, unlike the Turnover King, he delivers the ball to one of our guys consistently. Shaw should stay and should start in the middle or a wing next season where he doesn't need to worry so much about defence and can focus on using the ball.

MM is far too defensively minded. He has the players worried stupid that they'll make one mistake and get dumped, hence our stupid "chip" (aka "play safe") gameplan. We'd be far better off accepting a handful of mistakes in return for 20-odd accurate deliveries to a leading FF. Shaw makes the occasional mistake (as does Bucks or Burns) but he's copping undue flak for them.

Cannibal, its a lot harder to take risks and play the style of play that is dominating if you don't have players that will hit targets 11 out of 10 times.

Reason why the Lions are so good....when they roll the dice, they score and they hit targets. When Collingwood of 04 rolled the dice, we missed targets, turned it over and got burnt on the scoreboard.

So his game plan in one sense this year really catered for our players. In 2002/03 when w made two Grand Final appearances as many have forgotten, we had number behind the ball and when we rebounded or created a turnover, we had a half back line that attacked and penetrated. That half back line had a bad year and guys that were brimming with confidence; Ryan Lonie, Rhyce Shaw, Matt Lokan, etc.....didn't want to play the risk football because they 'believed' that if they turned it over they'd get burnt, and so the insular style of football that we played this year becomes evident. Its statistically impossible to chip the ball around for extended periods of time and not turn it over, of course the turnover is coming. You need to be able to kick long and kick to a contested situation. Further to this is not having a key forward to focus on. When Pebbles is on song he is hitting packs and riding bumps, something that never once occured in 2004.

What you say is true and I expect a more direct gameplan next year if we can make sure Taz, Pebbles, Cam Cloke, Davidson and perhaps Morrison are all fit and we have 2-3 tall key forwards playing every game. However, my observation was directed only at how someone like Shaw is particularly badly treated for the occasional mistake when we play the defensive chipping game, which is not how we should be utilising his skills. If we play the direct game next year, Shaw will be a star.

You put Pebbles, Cam Cloke, Tom Davidson and Billy the Kid in that team and still manage to find room for Rhyce Shaw and you are a better coach than I Cannibal, because with C2, Tom and Billy in there, Rhyce would struggle to make my 22.

That's not what I said. I said to play 2-3 tall key forwards at one time, not all five! For example, Taz, Pebbles and C2. Don't forget that C2 only got his chance when Davo went out with the knee injury. IMO, as a result of his performances, C2 has elevated himself above Davo in the pecking order and I mention Morrison because MM has said he will give the kid chances to show his ability next season and we need that to happen to develop real depth up forward. We suffered badly from a lack of more than one fully fit tall key forward for much of the season, hence our lousy scoring average compared to last year.

Okay, my bad
However, you put 3 key forwards and 3 key defenders and 2 ruckmen in that team and I'd still struggle to find room for Rhyce after I've picked

Holland
Buckley
Burns
Woewodin
Johnson
Lonie
Lockyer
Clement
Didak
Davis
Cole
Rowe
O'Bree (more likely than not)
B.Shaw (Best of the young midfielders that 99.95% of Nicks Forum haven't delisted)

Isn't that what we want, though - a shitload of depth? The lack of it really hurt us at the start of the year and we debuted ten kids from sheer necessity, not necessarily just so as to see whether they would make it or not. However, MM has said Richards, Cam Cloke, Davidson, Maxwell and Rowe will almost certainly become regulars next season and the other five will be given more chances. In my article, I nominated having 33 experienced players capable of being considered first choice players as being necessary to cover for injury, suspension and loss of form. So, I'd be pretty uptight only if you couldn't name more than 22 and struggle to fit them in!

However, I rate Shaw higher than O'Bree (and hope O'B gets traded) and I wouldn't consider anyone still to debut as worthy of a place in our top 22. No offence.

We won't be trading McGough. He will stay, and star next season. I am sure of it, as one more pre-season to get fitter and fast will help. Don't forget he had OP last summer.

I'd love Shaw to stay, but the fact is MM has something against him (IMO).

I'd have all the players back that we've traded before (well, alomst). Think of Michael, Scooto, Davis, Adkins...you get my drift. Not to mention Paul Willaims.

bringbackheathscotland wrote:yes the lakers had a problem where do they sign an aging superstar to another mega bucks contract like shaq wanted or have him leave for nothin when his current contract expired. So they dealt him for 3 average players. Every team in the league wanted shaq. not sure everyone wants rhyce, but I'm sure he's flattered for the comparison.

I've completely lost the plot....

I am not comparing Rhyce Shaw to Shaq, but I am comparing reasons for trading. The Lakers didn't consider Shaq, the NBLs best player, to be "untouchable". It was better under the circumstances to trade him for three players than to keep him regardless of the fact that Shaq will kill them when they play.

If Rhyce, McG or anyone we trade away plays a blinder against us so what? We shouldn't avoid trading simply because that player might kill us in a game in the future. Our sole objective when trading is to ask ourselves "will this trade make us a better side able to win the premiership?" If the answer is yes then go for it. If no then why bother?

FFS!. LONIE AINT GOING ANYWHERE!!!

They traded Shaq to the east so he could only destroy them twice a year and not face him in the playoffs until the nba finals. They didn't put him in the west where he could terrorise them 4 times a year and in the playoffs. Rhyce won't be terrorising anyone no matter where he plays methinks.

Here Here Cam

Cannibal, you are one of the posters here that I have utmost respect for, but even you can see the vast difference between having depth and having quality personal to call upon when the shit hits the fan.

Quality personnel is what we had in 02/03 with the likes of Freeborn, Betheras, Richardson, Molloy, etc to call upon. All I'm saying is that if you can't look in the cold light of day and see that Rhyce Shaw has nothing to offer the Collingwood Football Club outside of what he already has then it's time for another look. Similar to what Cam has said in another thread, he lacks the grunt and the physical presence over a footy that a McGough has and as such, he can't assist the team in the future. A decision like this isn't an easy one to make, rest assured, parting with a legacy may well put a great deal of supporters offside, but in order for Collingwood to play consistent, physical and dominating football in 2005 and beyond, it must do so without Rhyce Shaw as he has displayed little to none of these characteristics in the past 5 years.

I think get rid of both, but if i had to choose - have to go McGough even though he doesn't chase, he puts his head over the ball.

I just like talking about the NBA not the NBL