Without wanting to create a 'media hates us' palava, I've been moderately amused from afar the difference in the media reporting between the Dee's v Richmond game, and the Collingwood v Richmond game.  (granted, I'm in perth, so this may have been well covered over there)

Whilst I completely acknowledge that we were insipid against Hawthorn, which is a massive skew in this argument, but that aside, the dee's ran richmond into the 4th quarter, but when we lost by 40 odd points, we were labelled a debacle and 'the most frustrating team in the AFL'.

Collingwood however ran Richmond into the last quarter, and lost by 40 odd points. All I've heard since, was how amazing the Pies were, that they've really showed what a great team they will be, that this needs to be the benchmark for how they should play etc etc.

I guess its a theoretical question about how long do previous games impact peoples perception of a footy club?

With the honourable loss against the cats (I'm not going to whack maxy again), and a Collingwoodesque sustained competitive effort against the tigers, are you allowed one crap game a year? Tigers certainly had one against the saints last year.  Or, does that fact that we were crap against hawthorn, and then rolled over against the tiges, make us just crap (as many on here would attest).

Or, if you put the hawks game aside, does this change ones perception of how our season is coming together?

Apologies if this doesn't really makes sense!

 

 

 

 

 

luffy summed it up: 

 

 

It’s a great point you make, Collingwood are the media darlings at the moment I guess it’s because no one rated them before the season where everyone rated us, they have won 3 games playing their best football while we are barely going and have won 3, only a matter of time before the wheels fall off at pie land I’m sure you could look through previous years under Buckley and find where they won 3 in a row 

I don't think any team should be given grief for backing up after three and a half days. The victory over Essendon remains shallow in my mind - not because it was meaningless or I thought we were particularly poor, but that it was an especially unfair playing field when considered in terms of recovery ratios. I complained about our fixture last year, so it's only fair to acknowledge when it works to our considerable advantage. Ditto, Collingwood's reasonable effort against Richmond. 

4 hours ago, brendan said:

It’s a great point you make, Collingwood are the media darlings at the moment I guess it’s because no one rated them before the season where everyone rated us, they have won 3 games playing their best football while we are barely going and have won 3, only a matter of time before the wheels fall off at pie land I’m sure you could look through previous years under Buckley and find where they won 3 in a row 

Well said Brendan. Nearly everyone rated us as the big improvers this year, some even top 4, or even smokies for the flag. No one rated Collingwood to that degree although a minority had them in the bottom half of the eight. 

I think the reaction after our Richmond game was about the extent of the loss and the fact that two weeks in a row we were blown away after half time - badly. One of Roos mantras was never have blowouts: he did not always achieve it (aka his last game in charge) but generally he did. Last year it was rare for us but this year we had two in a row so early in the season which to put it mildly was very disheartening. The signs were not good.

Hopefully after Sunday we are now back on track, although our football is not yet setting the world on fire. We have a chance to rack up a few good wins over the next three weeks against lessor sides (although our record against beating those below us on the ladder to put it mildly hardly gives much confidence). Then we have the chance to put these arguments all to rest by crunching the Pies on Queens Birthday in early June - one of our most important games over the last fives years since the rebuild began. Either way, it will set us up for the season...

We are an easy target. If you are going to throw shade at Collingwood then you are going to cop backlash from a large and fiery supporter base.

There aren't as many Dee's fans around, and we are a downtrodden supporter base. Throwing shade at the Dee's comes with no risk or consequences.

Same works for compliments. You compliment the pies, more viewers, readers and patrons. We are a minority supporter base, there is little value in throw away compliments to our tean. If we want compliments we need to earn them the hard way, win and win well.

We were going to sleep for a quarter last year and it continued on this year.

That what all the whacks have been about!

Collingwood have a plethora of injuries and were down two men before the last quarter even started.

They did a lot better than us given we had almost a full squad to choose from and we had another quarter where we decided not to show up which has been the case for how long now?

Pretty obvious to me as to why we were criticised and Collingwood were praised.

Collingwood has Pendles, Treloar and Sidebottom- their best 3 players playing.

Dees had 2 of our best 5 players out including our captain 

26 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Collingwood have a plethora of injuries and were down two men before the last quarter even started.

They did a lot better than us given we had almost a full squad to choose from and we had another quarter where we decided not show up which has been the case for how long now?

Pretty obvious to me as to why we were criticised and Collingwood were praised.

There's something to this, and i agree largely but the annoyance is that until we seemed to hoist up the flag ( and it most certainly looked like it ) we were inthe game and had pushed then far harder than i thought we might.

That said...i can see the difference between us and Pies against Richmond. This only too well fits the popular narrative. ( Where would we be btw these days talking.... without "narrative" ?)

Had we played the Tiges as we did Ess this would be a different flavoured discussion. But we didn't.

Until we step up.... we're whipping boys. 

Happy to be ignored by the media. We don't handle praise well. The less the better.

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Happy to be ignored by the media. We don't handle praise well. The less the better.

Somehow leads to us getting ahead of ourselves eh ?

Though I didn't see the Collingwood Richmond game, to me, I think it's more about how compeditive Collingwood were perveived for the first three quarters compared to us.  Vs Richmond we played with great intent and ferocity at the man and ball for the first quarter, but failed to convert and capitalise up forward.  Second quarter we were incipid totally lacking in confidence and dare with our ball movement and we somewhat lucky to be in the game at half time.  We clawed things back a little after half time in the third quarter, but again were less than convincing, playing without great system and confidence in a period when I think they had Cotchin off the ground and Martin somewhat hobbling around.  Our fourth quarter needs no further mention.  Conversely, I get the impression that Collingwood played with better system and confidence intensity over the whole first three quarters.

None of this negative comparison bothers me overly to be honest.  The premiship isn't won in April.  That we are still managing to be generally compeditive and put a few wins on the board when we are down on form and several of our best players I think bodes well for when we get Viney back and start playing with better system, confidence and conviction over a full 4 quarters on a consistent basis.  Despite the retortric, I think the presence or absence of your best players still makes a huge difference, particularly to lesser and experienced sides like Melbourne and I would even say Richmond.  Richmond have had a dream run with injuries and if you were to take say Cotchin and Reiwolt or Martin out of their side, I think they would struggle.

I also don't buy too much into the shorter break side of things either.  Whilst I don't know the exact physiology of how significant it might be for recovery, both Richmond and Melbourne only had about 18 hrs more rest than Essendon and Collingwood respectively and so I think it's about as good as they can fixture it, if they are going to have these ANZAC Rd clashes between the respective clubs.

I think our style of play on the night against Richmond certainly didn't look as pretty as Collingwoods. They moved the ball more daringly. We were going back to basics of kicking the ball long and relying on bringing to ground to win at the contest to go inside 50. We didn't look as good but just as effective.

7 minutes ago, mongrel said:

I think our style of play on the night against Richmond certainly didn't look as pretty as Collingwoods. They moved the ball more daringly. We were going back to basics of kicking the ball long and relying on bringing to ground to win at the contest to go inside 50. We didn't look as good but just as effective.

Having watched both...was chalk and cheese. 

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Having watched both...was chalk and cheese. 

Were we the chalk or the cheese?

I didn't see all of that game, but I did hear Riewoldt interviewed after the game and he said Collingwood had been the toughest team they'd played, or words to that effect.  Hardwicke said the scoreboard flattered them and that it was really a 3-4 goal game.  He said Collingwood out-pressured them, which led to them having 90 uncontested marks.

So while the games may seem similar with a similar result, they were played in a different fashion and I sense Collingwood had Richmond's measure in aspects of the game that we didn't. 

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Were we the chalk or the cheese?

Cheese is invariably softer....our gane a bit Swiss too.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Collingwood have a plethora of injuries and were down two men before the last quarter even started.

They did a lot better than us given we had almost a full squad to choose from and we had another quarter where we decided not to show up which has been the case for how long now?

Pretty obvious to me as to why we were criticised and Collingwood were praised.

I don't disagree.   C'wood looked threatening but we never did despite hanging in. But it's worth mentioning that we were also 2 players down for the second half. Kent with his hammy and I recall Goodwin saying that another player didn't take part in the second half. Can't recall who it was.

Not that you ever can. But had we had sundays team playing the 2nd half style I suspect Riewoldt would be modifying his 'narrative'

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Were we the chalk or the cheese?

We don’t bring chalk platters to the footy Red

I heard Terry Wallace say that Hardwicke had held Cotchin and Dusty on the bench for many minutes in the 1st 3 quarters of the games against Melbourne and Collingwood. Plough went on to say that they were "unleashed" in the last quarters. I cant find the last qtr stats to back it up but I like listening to Plough.

Nonetheless Richmond have surprisingly good last quarters.

9 hours ago, davejemmolly said:

Without wanting to create a 'media hates us' palava, I've been moderately amused from afar the difference in the media reporting between the Dee's v Richmond game, and the Collingwood v Richmond game.  (granted, I'm in perth, so this may have been well covered over there)

Whilst I completely acknowledge that we were insipid against Hawthorn, which is a massive skew in this argument, but that aside, the dee's ran richmond into the 4th quarter, but when we lost by 40 odd points, we were labelled a debacle and 'the most frustrating team in the AFL'.

Collingwood however ran Richmond into the last quarter, and lost by 40 odd points. All I've heard since, was how amazing the Pies were, that they've really showed what a great team they will be, that this needs to be the benchmark for how they should play etc etc.

I guess its a theoretical question about how long do previous games impact peoples perception of a footy club?

With the honourable loss against the cats (I'm not going to whack maxy again), and a Collingwoodesque sustained competitive effort against the tigers, are you allowed one crap game a year? Tigers certainly had one against the saints last year.  Or, does that fact that we were crap against hawthorn, and then rolled over against the tiges, make us just crap (as many on here would attest).

Or, if you put the hawks game aside, does this change ones perception of how our season is coming together?

Apologies if this doesn't really makes sense!

 

 

 

 

 

The tigers got smashed by the crows just before the finals as well....

There will always be bias for as long as we are in the premiership wilderness.  

This applies to the fixture, prime time / friday night exposure and issues like the one raised in this thread.

7 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

I heard Terry Wallace say that Hardwicke had held Cotchin and Dusty on the bench for many minutes in the 1st 3 quarters of the games against Melbourne and Collingwood. Plough went on to say that they were "unleashed" in the last quarters. I cant find the last qtr stats to back it up but I like listening to Plough.

Nonetheless Richmond have surprisingly good last quarters.

Clever tactics if he did. We got blown away in the last.