Newcomer here

Not that regular a user of this forum so apologies if this has been done in another thread (please kindly point me in that direction if it has)

Neeld has been pretty open about having a tough, disciplined, play the percentages game plan...ie, the Collingwood plan he implemented

Supposedly in his dees interview he put the players names on the board and set out how he wants to play and where the missing pieces are

So assuming he wants to play the Collingwood plan...what do we think his starting 22 will be?

I've had a first crack based on lining up against the pies 2011 GF side...

B: Harry O (Garland) , Reid (Sellar?..though surely he won't be ready for rd1), Toovey (Bartram or Joel Mac)

HB: Shaw (Grimes), Tarrant (Frawley), Maxwell (Rivers)

C: Thomas (Blease?), Swan (Trengove), Ben Johnson (Bate or Jones)

HF: Didak (Sylvia), Cloke (Watts...not yet...but will have to play this lead up game), Krakour (Jurrah)

F: Sidebottom (Green), Dawes (Clark), Blair (Magner/Couch/Evans?)

Foll: Jolly (Jamar), Pendles (Gys...?), Ball (Maloney or McKenzie)

Inter: Wellingham (Bennell/Nicho?), Brown (Stef or Dunny), Davis (Davey), Fasolo (Tapscott)

Our X factors that could give us competitive advantage over the pies: Howe, Petterd

Good Post, that side matches pretty well to the Collingwood one. That team looks good to me nice mix of hardness & flair.

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by Grimes is Great

Newcomer here

Not that regular a user of this forum so apologies if this has been done in another thread (please kindly point me in that direction if it has)

Neeld has been pretty open about having a tough, disciplined, play the percentages game plan...ie, the Collingwood plan he implemented

Supposedly in his dees interview he put the players names on the board and set out how he wants to play and where the missing pieces are

So assuming he wants to play the Collingwood plan...what do we think his starting 22 will be?

I've had a first crack based on lining up against the pies 2011 GF side...

B: Harry O (Garland) , Reid (Sellar?..though surely he won't be ready for rd1), Toovey (Bartram or Joel Mac)

HB: Shaw (Grimes), Tarrant (Frawley), Maxwell (Rivers)

C: Thomas (Blease?), Swan (Trengove), Ben Johnson (Bate or Jones)

HF: Didak (Sylvia), Cloke (Watts...not yet...but will have to play this lead up game), Krakour (Jurrah)

F: Sidebottom (Green), Dawes (Clark), Blair (Magner/Couch/Evans?)

Foll: Jolly (Jamar), Pendles (Gys...?), Ball (Maloney or McKenzie)

Inter: Wellingham (Bennell/Nicho?), Brown (Stef or Dunny), Davis (Davey), Fasolo (Tapscott)

Our X factors that could give us competitive advantage over the pies: Howe, Petterd

If only it where that easy, hopefully the new structure will see us having their consistency soon

From memory, in the GF, Geelongs game plan worked better than Collingwoods. I hope its not around the boundry line all the time this year. However I do trust Neeld's judgement.

This thread title strikes a nerve...

It looks like we merged with...them.

And they will always be 'they'...

A certain Norm Smith was a fanatic Filth supporter until certain MFC Officials visited the family home to sign him up. I hope Mark Neeld can have the same level of success.

Just doesn't feel right, this thread. Finger nails down the blackboard.

From memory, in the GF, Geelongs game plan worked better than Collingwoods. I hope its not around the boundry line all the time this year. However I do trust Neeld's judgement.

WD do we have a choice?

Just doesn't feel right, this thread. Finger nails down the blackboard.

YES H_T

But the "CollingwoodFootball Club" is everything that the MFC is not right now.

In my wildest dreams I never thought I would say this but....

I admire them.

Just doesn't feel right, this thread. Finger nails down the blackboard.

Yeah and substituting "Filth" instead of "Collingwood" in the name of the thread doesn't work either ! How about "TWSNBN Demons" .

If Neeld is going to be a successful coach I expect he would move on from the Collingwood game plan he helped develop or significantly update it to reflect ever changing challenges. Geelong proved it can be beaten in the ultimate game with simple rapid movement and disposal of the ball even if the ball had to be hacked or forced forward . A little of the Colligwood discipline and commitment won't go astray though.

If we start doing what they have been doing for past couple of seasons his game plan will become as effective as his predecessor's game.

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by Jackie

If Neeld is going to be a successful coach I expect he would move on from the Collingwood game plan he helped develop or significantly update it to reflect ever changing challenges. Geelong proved it can be beaten in the ultimate game with simple rapid movement and disposal of the ball even if the ball had to be hacked or forced forward . A little of the Colligwood discipline and commitment won't go astray though.

If we start doing what they have been doing for past couple of seasons his game plan will become as effective as his predecessor's game.

There is one difference.

was his predecessor's plan ever successful?

There is one difference.

was his predecessor's plan ever successful?

Successful in getting him the sack.

Can we change the thread title to something a bit gentler to kick off the discussion ? Just those two words together without warning made my stomach heave

Can we change the thread title to something a bit gentler to kick off the discussion ? Just those two words together without warning made my stomach heave

Weak stomach???

Weak stomach???

Nah, just yer standard Collingwood revulsion

If Neeld is going to be a successful coach I expect he would move on from the Collingwood game plan he helped develop or significantly update it to reflect ever changing challenges. Geelong proved it can be beaten in the ultimate game with simple rapid movement and disposal of the ball even if the ball had to be hacked or forced forward . A little of the Colligwood discipline and commitment won't go astray though.

If we start doing what they have been doing for past couple of seasons his game plan will become as effective as his predecessor's game.

I presume that you are meaning that every year a wannabe successful coach needs to move on.

I still have terrible memories of ND trying to emulate whatever plan the previous year's Premiers had used, and especially post 2000 it got us nowhere.

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by monoccular