I've never understood the argument that Collingwood "let" us have this game. People realise it's the AFL that create the fixture, not Collingwood, right?

I've never understood the argument that Collingwood "let" us have this game. People realise it's the AFL that create the fixture, not Collingwood, right?

Actually, while I'm up on the soap box, the other term I hate is "our Grand Final". Christ almighty. The insinuation that playing against Collingwood on QB Monday comes even remotely close to playing in a Grand Final is, quite frankly, insulting. Sorry Collingwood, we do not high you in such high esteem that we think beating you is akin to winning the flag. The older generation love beating you because of the rivalry in the old days, and the younger crowd love beating you just because your club is arrogant from the top down, and you've got so many flog supporters who are just braindead zombies, walking around parroting every pile of waffle that comes out of Mick's mouth as if it is gospel. But a Grand Final it ain't.

I've never understood the argument that Collingwood "let" us have this game. People realise it's the AFL that create the fixture, not Collingwood, right?

The AFL were not set on having a prime QBW spot just granted to MFC. Eddie went public for the AFL to retain the status of the game as MFC's home game. He could have requested a rotated basis or he could have requested a bigger drawing opponent he didn't. Eddie may have had ulterior motives. If that is so, then the move is a Win-win outcome whih should be duly recognised.

And other poster saying we should give on this game on a rotation basis have rocks in their head. We need to hold the benefit of this game for as long as we can. Whether it is a home or away game, unless we get to the last week in Sept then this is the biggest crowd we will play against. 20k of MFC supporters, 40-45k of Pies supporters and 5-10k of neutral supporters with guaranteed TV exposure.

MFC should milk it for all its worth....and give the Pies the belting they richly deserve.

yes, I dislike Malthouse's quips each year referring to as "Melbourne approaches this game each year as a final, we see it as just as any other game...so we're up against it for the QB clash", hence the Mick's reasoning a few years back about blockbuster fatigue ! Have you ever heard so much down play or excuse in case they lose by an experienced coach ? It's bordering on disrespect towards Melbourne, IMO.

I understand what he means..that Collingwood pretty much have to be up each week, cos everyone wants to beat them, everyone sees it as a big game. But that's the job he took on, and he should wear it, not complain.

BTW, I think we can tell you hate Collingwood, nasher. Hey, don't let that get you down, I'm with you.

BTW, I think we can tell you hate Collingwood, nasher. Hey, don't let that get you down, I'm with you.

It's mostly because every Collingwood supporter I know seems to just magically turn in to a complete moron when the topic of footy comes up, including people I otherwise hold in very high regard. Gives me the ....

There is no doubt we do well out of it as well. Ultimately, it's an away game....we have to play 11 of them a year. But by building this one up a little....our sponsors are going to be very happy. It also allows us to play the good samaritan card. No doubt it works for both parties.

It's the same way we worked out the deal with the AFL to ensure more MCG games so that interstate teams can play interstate finals. Again we look like good samaritans, but ensure we get to play more games at the G.

I do think however that from a Collingwood point of view...the game has become a bit stale. I don't think we deserve half the gate revenue...because it is a Melbourne home game and isn't getting enough of a crowd. But I do think other teams should get a chance to play QB against Melbourne. Keep Melbourne as the main owners of the game...but use other sides other than Collingwood. At the very least, the QB match should be the first time these 2 sides meet. The game loses a lot of its appeal considering we have already played a game this year.

Anyways....it should be a good game. I expect you to give us a fair run as you did in Round 2. I'm looking forward to it nonetheless

Actually, while I'm up on the soap box, the other term I hate is "our Grand Final". Christ almighty. The insinuation that playing against Collingwood on QB Monday comes even remotely close to playing in a Grand Final is, quite frankly, insulting. Sorry Collingwood, we do not high you in such high esteem that we think beating you is akin to winning the flag. The older generation love beating you because of the rivalry in the old days, and the younger crowd love beating you just because your club is arrogant from the top down, and you've got so many [censored] supporters who are just braindead zombies, walking around parroting every pile of waffle that comes out of Mick's mouth as if it is gospel. But a Grand Final it ain't.

That might be true for us as supporters, but for the players, knowing that we're not going to be playing finals this year (at least that's what they thought pre-season), this was clearly marked down as the biggest match of the year.

Grand Finals are big matches. QB is, for us, a big match. So some of our players (if not all of them) view this game as their GF.

It might be hard to admit, but if you were told that we could only win one game for the year, you'd pick this one every time.

And other poster saying we should give on this game on a rotation basis have rocks in their head. We need to hold the benefit of this game for as long as we can. Whether it is a home or away game, unless we get to the last week in Sept then this is the biggest crowd we will play against. 20k of MFC supporters, 40-45k of Pies supporters and 5-10k of neutral supporters with guaranteed TV exposure.

Sure, we could do that. But going down that road doesn't guarantee the match will stay in the fixture.

Rotating the home/away ownership of the game keeps Collingwood interested, which in turn keeps the game alive.

And I also agree with you about the term "Melbourne's Grand Final"...it is disrespectful and I said in my preview I loathe that term. However I have heard Melbourne players refer to it in the past. It will be a big step forward for melbourne when they no longer consider this game as so important,

That might be true for us as supporters, but for the players, knowing that we're not going to be playing finals this year (at least that's what they thought pre-season), this was clearly marked down as the biggest match of the year.

Grand Finals are big matches. QB is, for us, a big match. So some of our players (if not all of them) view this game as their GF.

So would you take it one step further and say if they won the QB in a "good" year, the players would go "bugger it, we won QB! No need to bother contesting the finals now"? The answer is of course not, because they'll have forgotten about the Queen's Birthday match by the next week, but a Grand Final will be the pinnacle of their careers. I'm not disputing that it's a big game, but comparisons with a Grand Final are complete nonsense. It doesn't come close.

It might be hard to admit, but if you were told that we could only win one game for the year, you'd pick this one every time.

I freely admit that; no difficulty at all. Still doesn't make it like a Grand Final though.

yes, I dislike Malthouse's quips each year referring to as "Melbourne approaches this game each year as a final, we see it as just as any other game...so we're up against it for the QB clash", hence the Mick's reasoning a few years back about blockbuster fatigue ! Have you ever heard so much down play or excuse in case they lose by an experienced coach ? It's bordering on disrespect towards Melbourne, IMO.

I understand what he means..that Collingwood pretty much have to be up each week, cos everyone wants to beat them, everyone sees it as a big game. But that's the job he took on, and he should wear it, not complain.

BTW, I think we can tell you hate Collingwood, nasher. Hey, don't let that get you down, I'm with you.

As far as I am concerned Malthouse coined that 'melbourne's grand final' phrase and complained that they have to be up every week because everyone always wants to beat them......HELLO??! I would've thought Geelong laid claim to having to be UP every week, isn't that the position any team/supporter would want to be in? Can't wait for the day that we have to make the same complaint!!

Sure, we could do that. But going down that road doesn't guarantee the match will stay in the fixture.

Rotating the home/away ownership of the game keeps Collingwood interested, which in turn keeps the game alive.

We are still a financial basket case, so what we dont earn through this game at the gate means that the AFL will have to tip in.

In the absence of finals appearance, I think financially and for visibility of the MFC brand this game is too important to change any element.

This is one 'blockbuster' or 'traditional clash', call what you like, that has some basis in history ie: setting the record h and a attendance on QB 1955.

Anzac Day, success that it is, is an invention of modern football promotion. This one grew out of the game itself, before the term advertising concept was born. Before Mad Men even.

So would you take it one step further and say if they won the QB in a "good" year, the players would go "bugger it, we won QB! No need to bother contesting the finals now"? The answer is of course not, because they'll have forgotten about the Queen's Birthday match by the next week, but a Grand Final will be the pinnacle of their careers. I'm not disputing that it's a big game, but comparisons with a Grand Final are complete nonsense. It doesn't come close.

Of course not, what you're saying is all valid, but to me I still think the players treat QB differently to any other match. So whilst it might not be a 'grand final' it might have a similar aura to a finals game.

At the very least, the QB match should be the first time these 2 sides meet. The game loses a lot of its appeal considering we have already played a game this year.

It used to be the only time until the last couple of years. Agree.

I think the Round 2 game, if anything, adds to this game.

It used to be the only time until the last couple of years. Agree.

I think the Round 2 game, if anything, adds to this game.

Huh?

You agree that this should be the first game between the sides in the year, but you also think the Round 2 game adds something to this game?

Great stuff-DaVe 86.

Huh?

You agree that this should be the first game between the sides in the year, but you also think the Round 2 game adds something to this game?

Oh..do I have to explain...

It does read like that, doesn't it. I made two points. The first was I agreed that the QB should be the first time the sides meet..like last year (I think that is right, but I can't be bothered checking). The second point was made in reference to Dave's other point that he thought the QB loses it's oomph with a game already played b/w Melb v Coll. The point I'm making, is the 1 point thriller in Rd 2, if anything should add to the intrigue of this QB fixture.

We played the Pies round 2 last year. The first half was eerily similar to this years... Then they won by 56(ish)

We played the Pies round 2 last year. The first half was eerily similar to this years... Then they won by 56(ish)

Must have been 2008 then.

A few big blows for both sides.

James McDonald out is a massive loss to the Demons as he has been shutting down the best players. However, that probably squares off with us having our best clearance winner out.

I genuinely hope Sylvia pulls up. There must also be some doubt over nathan Jones. Hopefully the extra long break and the split round approaching means both are able to play with minor risk.

See you guys at the game. I got a message from AFL membership last night saying tickets were selling, so hopefully that's a sign that a decent crowd will show up

Oh..do I have to explain...

It does read like that, doesn't it. I made two points. The first was I agreed that the QB should be the first time the sides meet..like last year (I think that is right, but I can't be bothered checking). The second point was made in reference to Dave's other point that he thought the QB loses it's oomph with a game already played b/w Melb v Coll. The point I'm making, is the 1 point thriller in Rd 2, if anything should add to the intrigue of this QB fixture.

You don't make sense of your post

You can't make sense of it.

You can't make sense of it.

You are pretty clear to me HT!

Pretty clear to me, too!

Oh..do I have to explain...

It does read like that, doesn't it. I made two points. The first was I agreed that the QB should be the first time the sides meet..like last year (I think that is right, but I can't be bothered checking). The second point was made in reference to Dave's other point that he thought the QB loses it's oomph with a game already played b/w Melb v Coll. The point I'm making, is the 1 point thriller in Rd 2, if anything should add to the intrigue of this QB fixture.

OK, I get it now.

I would prefer, if we are going to play them twice, to play a game in Round 20-22, rather than Round 2. Let QB be the first one for the year.