Post Match. Pies down to Bombers. All comments, please.

[K]

Can anyone think of a LONG term successful coach who took over mid- season? Not a loaded question . Just asking if it's happened in recent times.

Terry Wallace?

There may be some more recent ones...

[K]

....
Finally this weekend finally proved the most useless stat in football is hit outs
If you don’t believe me ask West Coast who had twice as many hit outs than Geelong and lost by 100
Hit outs are a thing of the past in terms of importance
4 of the last 5 premierships have been won by sides without a dominant ruckman
They’ve been won by teams with massive pressure and good skills
And who would have thought Collingwood going the opposite way and investing a million a year in a position that doesn’t help you win a game ultimately !!

...
As for your drivel about Grundy, you might comment on the fact that he had 10 score involvements (for Collingwood, only Pendlebury had more, with 11 - and no Essendon player had so many) and he launched 9 scoring drives. The next nearest on the ground was 4.

Grundy had a hand in at least five Essendon goals, including their first three of the game.

You are incapable of viewing Grundy objectively.

[K]

...
then maybe they shouldnt be hired in the first place, Hird, Voss and Buckley the golden three as players...... not sure that being a champion player makes you automatically a good coach, not even a great one, just a good one. why do they get to queue jump? the writing was on the wall, it was clear Bux didnt agree with MM on coaching matters, change over or not, it certainly wasnt a good atmosphere in my mind. ill take the proper apprentice thanks,

After the Tim Watson debacle (not at his previous club), everyone said it would never happen again. Never again would a club hire someone as senior coach with no coaching experience.

But some clubs never learn.

[Jezza]

Terry Wallace?

There may be some more recent ones...

Paul Roos (Sydney) = Took over in 2002 from Rodney Eade (won the flag in 2005)

Grant Thomas (St Kilda) = Took over in 2001 from Malcolm Blight (finals from 2004-2006 which included two prelims)

Neil Craig (Adelaide) = Took over in 2004 from Gary Ayres (made finals from 2005-2009 which included two prelims in '05 and '06)

[Skids]

....
Finally this weekend finally proved the most useless stat in football is hit outs
If you don’t believe me ask West Coast who had twice as many hit outs than Geelong and lost by 100
Hit outs are a thing of the past in terms of importance
4 of the last 5 premierships have been won by sides without a dominant ruckman
They’ve been won by teams with massive pressure and good skills
And who would have thought Collingwood going the opposite way and investing a million a year in a position that doesn’t help you win a game ultimately !!

...
As for your drivel about Grundy, you might comment on the fact that he had 10 score involvements (for Collingwood, only Pendlebury had more, with 11 - and no Essendon player had so many) and he launched 9 scoring drives. The next nearest on the ground was 4.

Grundy had a hand in at least five Essendon goals, including their first three of the game.

You are incapable of viewing Grundy objectively.

Totally incapable.

I think Grundy is a 'good' player, but as you allude to K, his hit outs are hardly a stat to proclaim greatness.
He looks, slow, lethargic and disinterested at times.

Maybe the worst contract since the last Beams one.

[K]

Terry Wallace?

There may be some more recent ones...

Paul Roos (Sydney) = Took over in 2002 from Rodney Eade (won the flag in 2005)

Grant Thomas (St Kilda) = Took over in 2001 from Malcolm Blight (finals from 2004-2006 which included two prelims)

Neil Craig (Adelaide) = Took over in 2004 from Gary Ayres (made finals from 2005-2009 which included two prelims in '05 and '06)

Ah, yes... And Roos got his job after Sydney backed down from giving it to Wallace!

Neil Craig must be one of the most underrated coaches. Possibly a lot better than some premiership coaches.

[The General]

Can anyone think of a LONG term successful coach who took over mid- season? Not a loaded question . Just asking if it's happened in recent times.

Terry Wallace?

There may be some more recent ones...

Leigh Mathews.

Denis Pegan (although was during the pre-season).

[35forever]

rebuild is on, and we wont get a 1st round pick.

Hopeless.

The only saving grace is we get Nick Daicos.

I’ve been tracking Nicky for a few years now, & I can happily say the only times I’ve seen build up like this was for Phil Carman, & in the early 90s for a Port Adelaide kid called Buckley...
The irony is ankle deep, coz now the most exciting prospect I’ve seen is gonna be affected by that Buckley kid. The very best players have always been polished by the best coaches.
Barrassi & Norm Smith, Matthews & Kennedy, Pendles & Malthouse, etc etc...

So who’s Nicky gonna have?
Bucks? Some other nuffy? I don’t see any great coaches around, or coming. Does anyone else?
And of course one player, no matter how good, can’t bring success on his own.
The stupid thing is that I think we’ve been doing some really good development work in recent years, but with retirements imminent...

[slangman]

People are forgetting Cox.
It’s pretty clear Derek Hine recruited him as our weapon of mass destruction up forward. He has been reported as declaring Cox our most important recruit in a decade.
.

This is the biggest mistake in the last 30 years from a playing perspective.
To hedge all of your bets on an American basketballer who had never played the game before and thinking that he would dominate the most difficult position historically is nothing short of madness.

Yet, he almost won us a flag in 2018 with his demolition of Richmond in the PF.

With a better midfield delivery, Cox could be anything.

But still missed the crucial kick halfway through the last quarter in the GF which could have been a nail in the Eagles coffin. But he failed to make the distance from 35m (45 degree angle)

Cox has been excellent for about 15% of his career.
Taking away the Richmond PF, how many other times has he absolutely dominated the game and lead us to victory?
He’s best role is as a third tall. Thats not a $500K+ position.

[slangman]

People are forgetting Cox.
It’s pretty clear Derek Hine recruited him as our weapon of mass destruction up forward. He has been reported as declaring Cox our most important recruit in a decade.
.

This is the biggest mistake in the last 30 years from a playing perspective.
To hedge all of your bets on an American basketballer who had never played the game before and thinking that he would dominate the most difficult position historically is nothing short of madness.

Yet, he almost won us a flag in 2018 with his demolition of Richmond in the PF.

With a better midfield delivery, Cox could be anything.

But still missed the crucial kick halfway through the last quarter in the GF which could have been a nail in the Eagles coffin. But he failed to make the distance from 35m (45 degree angle)

Cox has been excellent for about 15% of his career.
Taking away the Richmond PF, how many other times has he absolutely dominated the game and lead us to victory?
He’s best role is as a third tall. Thats not a $500K+ position.

[Pies4shaw]

As for your drivel about Grundy, you might comment on the fact that he had 10 score involvements (for Collingwood, only Pendlebury had more, with 11 - and no Essendon player had so many) and he launched 9 scoring drives. The next nearest on the ground was 4.

Grundy had a hand in at least five Essendon goals, including their first three of the game.

You are incapable of viewing Grundy objectively.

OK. Let's just test whether that's a reasonable response to my comment - or if it's even responsive to my comment, shall we? Spolier: of course it isn't and I have no idea why you bother. You never, ever engage with the point being made. In this case, the point being made was that Grundy did a lot of positive things that hadn't been mentioned or taken into account by another poster's comments. I made that point in the specific context that Grundy had personally launched about half of Collingwood's scoring. Some background that might prove useful to assess the comment I made is that the most effectiveruckmen in the competition in this respect (and Grundy is one of the two) launch just under 4 scoring plays per game. Naitanui (who seems to be the standard many on here think Grundy should aspire to) averages 3.7 (but had just one against Collingwood) and Gawn averages 3.3. Grundy launched 9 against Essendon. There are 2 teams on the field every week. If Parish gets 42 disposals, no-one says "Oh, he can't have the medal because Crisp, Sidebottom and Pendlebury had 30 each". It seems to be a special rule on Nick's that we focus only on our great players when they don't take down the opposition with their play and never mention it when they do.

Collingwood's first goal was set up by a double-handed palm to Pendlebury by Grundy from the opening bounce. If Naitanui had done that, everyone would be saying, "See, that's what a ruckman is supposed to do".

Collingwood's second goal came from Grundy putting the next bounce down Daicos' throat. Daicos was tackled high. Collingwood had the first two goals of the game, with just 47 seconds used on the clock, directly from the ruck advantage.

Essendon's first goal came from a stoppage inside 50. Grundy palmed the ball towards Pendlebury but Parish beat him for the ball in the contest and kicked the goal.

Essendon's second goal came from repeat inside 50s by Parish, the first created by an appalling kick by WHE out on the full under no pressure. Grundy got a quick kick out of defence towards the flank (after Ruscoe nauseatingly, in the time-honoured Buckley tradition, took the ball back through an entire pack before handballing to a Collingwood player under pressure). The player under pressure happened to be Grundy. The ball came to Parish - WHE was 10 metres away from Parish - who was able to turn in-board under no pressure and put it onto Phillips' chest.

The third Collingwood goal came from a boundary throw in on the wing. Grundy won the tap, Macrae got the ball back to Grundy, Grundy cleaned up with a good handball out to Pendlebury, who kicked it to Moore on the lead.

Essendon's third goal came after Stringer smothered Grundy's attempt to kick the ball clear from the next centre bounce. Pendlebury was right with Stringer but couldn't stop him giving it out to Phillips. Phillips kicked long to a contest. Collingwood cleaned up and then the indescribably awful Madgen showed absolutely no awareness of the presence of MT, who caught him cold, holding the ball, when he should have been able to clear.

Grundy only "had a hand in" those Essendon's goals in the sense that he was in the general run of play. Each time, the opposition's medium-sized players beat ours one-on-one (Parish on Pendlebury, Parish on WHE, Stringer on Pendlebury). In two of the three cases, bad basic skill errors (WHE and Madgen) created the scoring opportunities.

Of course, ultimately this was just another example of your unwillingness to consider a point being made. My comment to qldmagpies67 was that he should take some account of the positive things Grundy did. Those positive things included that he personally launched about half of Collingwood's scoring plays. Your biased response was to point to Grundy's "mistakes" - but, of course, because they weren't actually his fault, you could only resort to saying that Grundy "had a hand in" those goals. The point I was making should be obvious, even to a Grundy-hater like you - thus, as the detail shows, Grundy's rucking directly led to Collingwood's first 3 goals and the most that can be said about Essendon's first 3 goals is that Grundy didn't stop them.

Your comments about Grundy always focus only on the thing you say he didn't do. The comments are so unfair to him that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that you are doing anything other than trolling him.

[5 from the wing on debut]

This is the biggest mistake in the last 30 years from a playing perspective.
To hedge all of your bets on an American basketballer who had never played the game before and thinking that he would dominate the most difficult position historically is nothing short of madness.

Yet, he almost won us a flag in 2018 with his demolition of Richmond in the PF.

With a better midfield delivery, Cox could be anything.

But still missed the crucial kick halfway through the last quarter in the GF which could have been a nail in the Eagles coffin. But he failed to make the distance from 35m (45 degree angle)

Cox has been excellent for about 15% of his career.
Taking away the Richmond PF, how many other times has he absolutely dominated the game and lead us to victory?
He’s best role is as a third tall. Thats not a $500K+ position.

We have had two massive underdog victories in finals since we won our last premiership.

The first was the one that you referred to against Richmond, when Cox destroyed them.

The second was the final in Perth last year against WCE. Don't you recall that Cox turned the game in our favour in the first quarter, kicking 3 goals in about 3 minutes? I would say that he led us to victory in that game too.

I am not saying that he is a superstar. Far from it. He doesn't perform quite frequently, but when he does, which seems to be in the bigger games, he can go at a level that no-one else in the team, except perhaps deGoey, can match in terms of turning games.

[5 from the wing on debut]

As for your drivel about Grundy, you might comment on the fact that he had 10 score involvements (for Collingwood, only Pendlebury had more, with 11 - and no Essendon player had so many) and he launched 9 scoring drives. The next nearest on the ground was 4.

Grundy had a hand in at least five Essendon goals, including their first three of the game.

You are incapable of viewing Grundy objectively.

OK. Let's just test whether that's a reasonable response to my comment - or if it's even responsive to my comment, shall we? Spolier: of course it isn't and I have no idea why you bother. You never, ever engage with the point being made. In this case, the point being made was that Grundy did a lot of positive things that hadn't been mentioned or taken into account by another poster's comments. I made that point in the specific context that Grundy had personally launched about half of Collingwood's scoring. Some background that might prove useful to assess the comment I made is that the most effectiveruckmen in the competition in this respect (and Grundy is one of the two) launch just under 4 scoring plays per game. Naitanui (who seems to be the standard many on here think Grundy should aspire to) averages 3.7 (but had just one against Collingwood) and Gawn averages 3.3. Grundy launched 9 against Essendon. There are 2 teams on the field every week. If Parish gets 42 disposals, no-one says "Oh, he can't have the medal because Crisp, Sidebottom and Pendlebury had 30 each". It seems to be a special rule on Nick's that we focus only on our great players when they don't take down the opposition with their play and never mention it when they do.

Collingwood's first goal was set up by a double-handed palm to Pendlebury by Grundy from the opening bounce. If Naitanui had done that, everyone would be saying, "See, that's what a ruckman is supposed to do".

Collingwood's second goal came from Grundy putting the next bounce down Daicos' throat. Daicos was tackled high. Collingwood had the first two goals of the game, with just 47 seconds used on the clock, directly from the ruck advantage.

Essendon's first goal came from a stoppage inside 50. Grundy palmed the ball towards Pendlebury but Parish beat him for the ball in the contest and kicked the goal.

Essendon's second goal came from repeat inside 50s by Parish, the first created by an appalling kick by WHE out on the full under no pressure. Grundy got a quick kick out of defence towards the flank (after Ruscoe nauseatingly, in the time-honoured Buckley tradition, took the ball back through an entire pack before handballing to a Collingwood player under pressure). The player under pressure happened to be Grundy. The ball came to Parish - WHE was 10 metres away from Parish - who was able to turn in-board under no pressure and put it onto Phillips' chest.

The third Collingwood goal came from a boundary throw in on the wing. Grundy won the tap, Macrae got the ball back to Grundy, Grundy cleaned up with a good handball out to Pendlebury, who kicked it to Moore on the lead.

Essendon's third goal came after Stringer smothered Grundy's attempt to kick the ball clear from the next centre bounce. Pendlebury was right with Stringer but couldn't stop him giving it out to Phillips. Phillips kicked long to a contest. Collingwood cleaned up and then the indescribably awful Madgen showed absolutely no awareness of the presence of MT, who caught him cold, holding the ball, when he should have been able to clear.

Grundy only "had a hand in" those Essendon's goals in the sense that he was in the general run of play. Each time, the opposition's medium-sized players beat ours one-on-one (Parish on Pendlebury, Parish on WHE, Stringer on Pendlebury). In two of the three cases, bad basic skill errors (WHE and Madgen) created the scoring opportunities.

Of course, ultimately this was just another example of your unwillingness to consider a point being made. My comment to qldmagpies67 was that he should take some account of the positive things Grundy did. Those positive things included that he personally launched about half of Collingwood's scoring plays. Your biased response was to point to Grundy's "mistakes" - but, of course, because they weren't actually his fault, you could only resort to saying that Grundy "had a hand in" those goals. The point I was making should be obvious, even to a Grundy-hater like you - thus, as the detail shows, Grundy's rucking directly led to Collingwood's first 3 goals and the most that can be said about Essendon's first 3 goals is that Grundy didn't stop them.

Your comments about Grundy always focus only on the thing you say he didn't do. The comments are so unfair to him that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that you are doing anything other than trolling him.

I am going to ignore facts and just give opinions.
Opinions which I will not seek to substantiate.
Ruckmen are the least valuable players on the ground.
Those that don't understand that are living in the past.
They take the spot of a player that would otherwise make a large contribution.
Hit outs mean virtually nothing.
For a ruckman to be valuable he has to get back and take defensive marks as well as get forward, take marks and kick goals. He also has to ensure that his opponent doesn't belt the ball forwards.
Grundy was the most over rated Collingwood player that I can recall, before he signed the 7 year extension.
I don't blame him for taking it, of course he would. I blame the fools that offered him the deal.
We should have traded Grundy out when we had the chance. We have no chance now, he's going nowhere unless we pay another club to play him.
That deal is going to haunt us for the next 6 seasons.

[piedys]

my thoughts exactly - maybe i should coach this week!! couldnt do any worse.

No qualms from me.

[BEAMER09]

my thoughts exactly - maybe i should coach this week!! couldnt do any worse.

No qualms from me.

and you can have it for 10yrs as well (change your name by deed poll to Bucks and you are safe... )