I only read a couple of those "Facts"before I got frustrated. I personally don't care about this petty debate one way or another and won't bother arguing the merits of either side.

But one thing that does annoy me is people calling their opinions 'fact'. It does show me why so many people form such stupid opinions - because they don't know what a fact is!!

I actually accept that. Having re-read my post I agree it is a pretty annoying. My apologies.

I'm stunned we picked Gysberts. Hasn't Prendergast been banging on about picking blokes that can kick the ball. From what I hear Gysberts kicking needs dramatic improvement.

Very interesting selection.

I'm stunned we picked Gysberts. Hasn't Prendergast been banging on about picking blokes that can kick the ball. From what I hear Gysberts kicking needs dramatic improvement.

Very interesting selection.

He came equal 2nd in the Draft Camp Kicking Test for a start.

I think he's still quite a good kick even without that credential.

You don't "hear" this off Big Footy or the like, do you?

Some of those "facts" are opinion. I don't think we were close to a prelim in 2002, for example. We were a 7-8 side, and a 5-6 side at best. We were lucky to even get close to the Crows at footy park. OPINION.

You see what I did there?

I will say that the Woey trade was pretty much a must-do. We didn't trade Woey for Danny Bell. We traded him for pick 14. It was a good trade, a sensible one, and bottom line it was absolutely necessary.

If you're going to compare Woey's last few years to Bell's career so far, then I'd say Woey has him beaten. He was only just in the pies best 22 for his few years at the club, and he didn't take them to any flags. Belly has been smashed by injuries, and thus his effectiveness has been non-existent.

It's pretty cut and dried really. I don't know why anyone would still be talking about it.

Oh, and with respect, claiming to have intimate knowledge of the squad's "tightness" is where you would lose most people here Ron. I'm certain that no-one on here can claim to know more about the mindset of 20-odd young men in a team than anyone else currently posting.

Some of those "facts" are opinion. I don't think we were close to a prelim in 2002, for example. We were a 7-8 side, and a 5-6 side at best. We were lucky to even get close to the Crows at footy park. OPINION.

You see what I did there?

I will say that the Woey trade was pretty much a must-do. We didn't trade Woey for Danny Bell. We traded him for pick 14. It was a good trade, a sensible one, and bottom line it was absolutely necessary.

If you're going to compare Woey's last few years to Bell's career so far, then I'd say Woey has him beaten. He was only just in the pies best 22 for his few years at the club, and he didn't take them to any flags. Belly has been smashed by injuries, and thus his effectiveness has been non-existent.

It's pretty cut and dried really. I don't know why anyone would still be talking about it.

Oh, and with respect, claiming to have intimate knowledge of the squad's "tightness" is where you would lose most people here Ron. I'm certain that no-one on here can claim to know more about the mindset of 20-odd young men in a team than anyone else currently posting.

When Woewy was cut by Melbourne, he was gutted. Despite the fact that you say, “he was only just in the club’s best 22”, when he was at the filth, Buckley won his Brownlow, albeit he tied for it. Coincidence? Perhaps Buckley had the luxury of having the close scrutiny diminished, simply by Woewy’s presence, that he had not experienced before or after that time. However, Woewy’s heart was always somewhere else, and to some extent, he was a lost soul at Collingwood.

Before Woewy was forced to leave, he was, in a very prominent sense, the marketing “face” of the MFC and in fact featured on the front of membership tickets. To me, Woewy was unfairly maligned in some quarters, particularly while he was with the filth.

I have very fond memories of his Brownlow year and goal of year.

In my opinion, Woewy was much better than an average player, without being a superstar and even better, he was a great Melbourne man.

A player gets cut by a club and is gutted..That's a first. Woey displayed the same attitude when he was cut by the Pies.

Buckley won the B'low because he was Buckley. He also had Licuria and Burns at their peak who were a far greater influence than Woey who was in the midfield rotations.

People forget that his B'low win was a surprise and Woey won it as part of a workmanlike midfield that included Powell (ball magnet that year but finished their after), Leoncelli, Rigoni. As his midfield supports waned in the following years so did Woey. A player that got everything out of himself for AFL but lacked the class, skill and speed to match it in the big time Sept action. In his first GF at the Pies in 2003, he was overawed and outplayed by Simon Black. It did not help when he pulled out of a contested marking situation as well. he was fair to average midfielder at CFC but his time was up within 2 years of leaving MFC

Its was a tough trade but the correct one given the circumstances.

.......A player gets cut by a club and is gutted..That's a first ............

No, it's a reality for many a young man. Once again, in the spirit of robust debate, we agree to disagree.

To my mind, Woewy rates as a Melbourne footballer and it was no surprise to see him win his Brownlow. It was thoroughly deserved and I had a nice collect at the lucky shop.. Those reasoned friends of mine who barrack for the Pies, albeit begrudgingly, recognise Woewy's short-lived, but significant contribution to the Collingwood engine room.

I cant wait for the season to start so threads like this disappear. Just on the Powell/Woey situation IMO our players and coaching staff got ahead of themselves after 2000, good AFL players started wanting more, our players played well with each other but the end of the day poor TPP management put the club in a position to get rid of these two.

On the thread topic, who knows, I all know is Mclean has been running on the spot for the past 3 years, will he show more at Carlton yes he wil because he will be the in a very good midfield unit, but I thought that about Trav when he went to Brisbane and he is still running on the spot.

Gysberts is a player with talent and potential, like Grimes we can not put the Mclean would have been better tag on this guy until he is 5 years into his AFL future and then it counts for nothing anyway.

At Mcleans pace he is literally running on the spot.

At Mcleans pace he is literally running on the spot.

I think you'll find acceleration is his problem.

Not the smartest thing to say when he has just beaten Judd in a 3 km time trial.

His acceleration was never really, really bad. Not brilliant, but not artocious. He needed that in order to win clearances. But his top pace is poor, and looks moreso nowadays.

Beating Judd in a 3km time trial means nothing about his speed, it just says that his endurance is very good. And it is very good. He's always tested well in long distance time trials.

No, it's a reality for many a young man. Once again, in the spirit of robust debate, we agree to disagree.

No kidding. :D

I am not sure where we disagree. A player gets cut/traded he is gutted. Happens all the time. I am not sure why you made a point of mentioning it as it did not address or deflect from Dappa's "best 22" comment.

bring on the footy season

I think the Dees picking Gysberts because he's played with Scully is drawing a VERY long bow.

Why not just pick all Dandenong Stingray players?

I'm not in any way saying that that's the only reason he was taken. My point is that in a draft where there was very little to distinguish between many of the mid-range picks, this could well have been a deciding factor in which player to take. Most commentators agreed that after the top ten (or eight, or six) there was a sharp drop off and that you could throw a blanket over twenty or so players for the rest of the first round.

How did we get onto Woey again?

Oh well , I can't resist

I've always thought that the thing that brought Woey down at Melbourne was the last contract he got, and both his manager & the club should bear the blame. His last contract was in the $500k range (my source was a press release from the club at the time explaining their decision), this put him in the highest paid category in the league. This also brought an expectation that his performances had to continue to match the size of his contract.

Woey was a good average player but had a great year which won him a brownlow. He was always going to struggle to rise to the elite level and the club just couldn't afford to have so much money tied up with a good average player, something had to give. Now I'm unsure of how he got that contract, whether he threatened to walk or the club just gave in but it was a terrible decision that effectively prematurely ended his career by several seasons. I firmly believe that if he had of had a more realistic contract he would have played out his career at the one club.

Oh, from memory we paid $50k per year of his salary to the pies.

How did we get onto Woey again?

Oh well , I can't resist

I've always thought that the thing that brought Woey down at Melbourne was the last contract he got, and both his manager & the club should bear the blame. His last contract was in the $500k range (my source was a press release from the club at the time explaining their decision), this put him in the highest paid category in the league. This also brought an expectation that his performances had to continue to match the size of his contract.

Woey was a good average player but had a great year which won him a brownlow. He was always going to struggle to rise to the elite level and the club just couldn't afford to have so much money tied up with a good average player, something had to give. Now I'm unsure of how he got that contract, whether he threatened to walk or the club just gave in but it was a terrible decision that effectively prematurely ended his career by several seasons. I firmly believe that if he had of had a more realistic contract he would have played out his career at the one club.

Oh, from memory we paid $50k per year of his salary to the pies.

I think you're close.

I had understood that post his B'low, Woey was getting some strong interest over West (I think Freo) to come to them when his existing contract expired in 2001. Concerned that the high $$$ deal was going to attract him, MFC pre emptively secured Woey to a four year contract where the last two years of the contract were back ended with higher payments than in the first two years. After 2000, Woey struggled to be a key player in the midfield by 2002 and was being played off the HBF and was not a prime player in the MFC midfield mix. When lost the semi final in 2002, a full review of the strengths and weaknesses of the side by the Footy dept. They had a view to revitalise the side to be more competitive to seriously compete for a flag in 3 years time. They identified that Woey was not one of the prime movers in the side on 2002 form and was seen as a declining force as a footballer going forward and given the salary cap pressure with his back ended package, MFC sought a trade. Collingwood traded pick 14(?) for him. MFC also agreed to pick up a considerable amount of his back ended salary for the two years of his existing contract. I suspect that the we paid the Pies somewhere between 150k to 200k per annum in 2003 and 2004.

People forget that his B'low win was a surprise and Woey won it as part of a workmanlike midfield that included Powell (ball magnet that year but finished their after), Leoncelli, Rigoni. As his midfield supports waned in the following years so did Woey. A player that got everything out of himself for AFL but lacked the class, skill and speed to match it in the big time Sept action. In his first GF at the Pies in 2003, he was overawed and outplayed by Simon Black. It did not help when he pulled out of a contested marking situation as well. he was fair to average midfielder at CFC but his time was up within 2 years of leaving MFC

I think this is a bit unfair to Woey.

He was a very good player for a lot of his career, just not the superstar a lot of people wanted and expected him to be.

To be overawed and outplayed by someone of Simon Black's calibre is nothing to be ashamed of.

I dare say he would've done a lot better if pitted against a lesser player... but that was not Woey's lot.

His acceleration was never really, really bad. Not brilliant, but not artocious. He needed that in order to win clearances. But his top pace is poor, and looks moreso nowadays.

Beating Judd in a 3km time trial means nothing about his speed, it just says that his endurance is very good. And it is very good. He's always tested well in long distance time trials.

I agree. He has high endurance over long distances at a constant speed. Once obstacles (ie. tackles/shepherds/brought to ground) are in place or repetitive turning / stop-start running, his top speed (which isn't Usain Bolt-like (no-one's really is) ..)suffers.

My observation of Brock is he often changes direction with a wide turning circle at constant speed when changing direction to me during the game, this might be his preference as opposed to a stop-start sprint turn. Perhaps as a way of conserving energy. I'd be interested to read others views on this. I have similar views on Bell too in this regard.

I hope it doesn't seem like I don't think Brock is a good player. Because he is a good player. If he wasn't a good player then we wouldn't have received a first round draft pick for him. He will be very good for Carlton with his tough work and hard body. Carlton's gameplan will also help him get a lot of the ball whereas our gameplan reduces his personal effectiveness. They are far less defensive and their open running 'Russian roulette' game plan allows him to use his endurance and footy smarts to work into space more easily.

Brock is a player who is in constant motion. His endurance is very good and he covers a lot of ground, albeit not very quickly. But our game style has trended away from roaming around the ground picking up kicks from just reading the play well, as he was able to do very easily when Daniher was coaching. He wins contested ball and one on one contests very well. But Bailey has our side playing a hard running burst style of game, which Brock just wasn't suited to.

It is interesting to note that since Bailey changed our style after coming to the club Brock has struggled, yet Sylvia has grown an extra leg. Sylvia is a power runner whose understanding of the game wasn't that great, whereas Brock is a perpetual motion ball magnet who is a natural footballer but has struggled to adapt his style. Davey, too, has thrived when his burst play is harnessed with high midfield rotations and spells on the bench. Our draftees have great endurance, but are generally really good power runners who carry the ball. Scully and Trengove definitely are.

I think it was a really smart decision by Melbourne, but also a really smart decision by Brock. Brock will play better footy at Carlton and we build a team more suited to our style of play. I hope, and expect, that both parties do very well out of the move.

Good post.

I hope it doesn't seem like I don't think Brock is a good player. Because he is a good player. If he wasn't a good player then we wouldn't have received a first round draft pick for him. He will be very good for Carlton with his tough work and hard body. Carlton's gameplan will also help him get a lot of the ball whereas our gameplan reduces his personal effectiveness. They are far less defensive and their open running 'Russian roulette' game plan allows him to use his endurance and footy smarts to work into space more easily.

Brock is a player who is in constant motion. His endurance is very good and he covers a lot of ground, albeit not very quickly. But our game style has trended away from roaming around the ground picking up kicks from just reading the play well, as he was able to do very easily when Daniher was coaching. He wins contested ball and one on one contests very well. But Bailey has our side playing a hard running burst style of game, which Brock just wasn't suited to.

It is interesting to note that since Bailey changed our style after coming to the club Brock has struggled, yet Sylvia has grown an extra leg. Sylvia is a power runner whose understanding of the game wasn't that great, whereas Brock is a perpetual motion ball magnet who is a natural footballer but has struggled to adapt his style. Davey, too, has thrived when his burst play is harnessed with high midfield rotations and spells on the bench. Our draftees have great endurance, but are generally really good power runners who carry the ball. Scully and Trengove definitely are.

I think it was a really smart decision by Melbourne, but also a really smart decision by Brock. Brock will play better footy at Carlton and we build a team more suited to our style of play. I hope, and expect, that both parties do very well out of the move.

You make some interesting points. In relation to Sylvia, I think it's more to do with above the shoulders in relation to where his improvement and increased output has come from. Hence, an improved understanding of his own capabilities and what is required.

For the record, I didn't interpret your earlier post - that you didn't think he (Brock) is a good player. He is a good player. Your description of Brock in terms of his top pace being poor is most valid, I think most would agree.

You make some interesting points. In relation to Sylvia, I think it's more to do with above the shoulders in relation to where his improvement and increased output has come from. Hence, an improved understanding of his own capabilities and what is required.

For the record, I didn't interpret your earlier post - that you didn't think he (Brock) is a good player. He is a good player. Your description of Brock in terms of his top pace being poor is most valid, I think most would agree.

I don't put Sylvia's imporvement down to Baileys game plan. He really had his first full year in 2008 after a decent pre-season and playing most games. It was always going to take a year to get back and then move forward in 2009, which he did. Very similiar to Rivers who had that full year in 2009, and can now launch into 2010 with some continuity and confidence in his body.

Sylvia's style would be suited to most teams. he doesn't rely on just one element of his play.

Brock I thought in 2009 was not up to AFL standard because of his lack of pace.

At no point did I say that the change in game plan was solely responsible for Sylvia's good season, just that he has not struggled with the new style like Brock has. I used the two players as a comparison for why Brock's decision to move on was a good one. Sylvia is well suited to Bailey's style and has thrived within it, whereas Brock struggled somewhat and I was showing the difference between their playing styles, along with Davey's, to give people a better I idea of why I think Brock struggled.

Other than the "go home" factor, a coach rarely lets go a player he truly wants to keep. With this in mind, I think Axis' analysis is pretty much spot on, keeping in mind what DB's plans appear to be for the future.

Fact,

Mclean left Melbourne for the following reasons,

1. Didn’t like the position Bailey had planned for him

2. Was asked to take a pay cut, and wasn’t happy considering he had inject x about of money into the club

Fact,

Mclean left Melbourne for the following reasons,

1. Didn’t like the position Bailey had planned for him

2. Was asked to take a pay cut, and wasn’t happy considering he had inject x about of money into the club

hahaha more opinions and propaganda presented as fact...

Edit: You realise that I could go to the Herald Sun, tell them Collingwood promised to draft me, but didn't because I told them I wanted to play for MFC and they could print it... but it doesn't mean any of it is true.

Merely that it is the story I wanted to put out there for appearances.