pitmaster

Reading this morning's Age (Sept 1) where Tim Membery talks about the difference between being at St Kilda (where players talk passionately about ending the club's premiership drought), and Collingwood (where reminders of past glories are everywhere - "it's painted on the walls"), so that "you just feel that as a player being in this environment it's going to be successful", this new base cannot come fast enough. For all our sakes I hope Brad Green, Paul Guerra and Steve Smith make it happen and give us something to see taking shape by the end of 2026. It would make a great marker for a 100th premiership anniversary.

Fair point. He has never had an impact at senior level but has not really been given much opportunity. The sub role has diminished the prospects of a few players. The one who got away and now playing strong footy for the Giants is a similar example. I had given up on Laurie but watching him today thought it may not all be on him.

Possibly a condemnation of Simon Goodwin.

Yeah, but as a kid. He was in premiership sides in his first and second years, so not a senior player or leader. Just a lucky kid, so that premiership record was never particularly persuasive to me, although I love what he did for our club as a coach.

Only Sam Darcy saved his arsey.

Interesting observation if true. I'm interested to know how you know this.

Supposed to share the Burgess philosophy but the evidence of the past four seasons is of declining impact. Selwyn needs to be part of the clean out.

Even the MCC members was chock-a-block B & W.

Exactly so. Sitting on second level northern stand I scanned the rest of the level with binoculars at 3/4 time and could only see b & w. Where I was (MCC section 42) there was a Dee presence but elsewhere it looked totally occupied by the opposition.

Just a word of thanks for fronting up after another deeply disappointing loss. Your weekly discussions have been my primary therapy this year. I am going to miss our counselling sessions. As I noted in the post match thread, that was a game lost not by lack of fitness but by lack of composure. I can't bear to watch the replay and I was at the wrong end of the ground in the last term so please explain what was that kick of Max's that knocked over the pie stand on the second deck about? And how did Trac miss from close in? It's all in the heads isn't it? Trying too hard? How do they fix this? And let's celebrate too how we turned the game in the third.

Please elaborate.

That loss had nothing to do with fitness. I was really impressed with how the Dees kept pushing through the final quarter even as the goal tide shifted. The third term was brilliant: after losing centre clearances in the first half we turned the game on its head with some great work from Rivers running off the work of Oliver and Trac. Fritters' 55 metre goal was a ripper. And while we were a little lucky to be as close as we were at half time JVR and Petty had really showed something early. That same drive was still there in the final term but what cost us was lack of composure in front of goal. One goal from eight shots with five behinds and two OOB was crucial. We needed one of those snaps to go through. I was at the city end but from what I saw Trac did well to win a contest in close but missed from very close in. Langdon sprayed wide. Trac too. Gawn's attempt I'll never understand. From one of those points the Pies played on quickly up the guts and foaled within seconds - a huge two goal moment - because we had not set up defensively for the kick in. We did not make that mistake again. There were several marking contests where it seemed Petty or JVR might replicate that gras they'd taken earlier but it was not to be. Our sixth loss by a goal or less and the third in the past (is it four?) few games: Saints Dogs and Filth. The answer is in the heads of our forwards and midfielders. I hate to say it but that was a brave effort. It showed much more heart than I feared might be displayed before the game. Oh, and May's lazy short pass brain face kick did not help. Is it time Steven?

It used to be the case that players would not rat on one another at the tribunal and would leave what happened on the ground to be settled on the ground. Yet it seems no longer to be the case as Collingwood ratted - "dobbed in" if your prefer - on Izak Rankine. Sydney's Blakey had been similarly insulted but said nothing. Collingwood, with Maynard of all people taking the high moral ground, has driven this. It interests me that no one in the media has remarked on Collingwood's role and the fact that it simultaneously diminishes the prospects of one of its stronger rivals for the premiership. I understand that folks don't want to diminish the sense of wrong here, but surely Collingwood's role and consequent benefit is worthy of recognition. What do others think?

I'd have liked to see Johnson included for some random vigour.

I'm going. It's a long time between seasons and this is the last chance to see the boys this year. But I'm dreading what I am going to see. Hoping to be surprised.

Different incident HW. Smith (35) despatches Filth No 24 a few seconds after Jim Durnan (21) settles another score.

Knock a bloke out and end his career in a final, do so while playing for Collingwood: no penalty. Call a Collingwood player an offensive name on the eve of the finals: penalty is five weeks suspension. Mind numbing.

And for those too young to know, that's the incoming president at the 21 second mark flooring a Magpie. Look for number 35.

As much as I hate to admit it, Buckley does have respect in the game and he would be good for the following: retaining players, attracting players, keeping sponsors, encouraging membership sales, winning over the media, and maybe most importantly, securing from the AFL some R E S P E C T for the club and support with fixturing for one. I say these things because they're true, but also to stop myself having a quiet upchuck when (if) he gets the gig.

No way is Hinkley anywhere near it.

More than once on this website have I been accused of being a pedant, but even I don't have enough tolerance to sit through Howard parsing the difference between 'mainly' and 'huge'.

We were never in this contest but when we did bring some intensity after half time and dominated play it was our forward craft that let us down. That and the fact that Fritter and Kozzie both had shockers and both spilled markable balls directed to the hot spot in front of goal in the early stages of that quarter. Turner drilled a sharp 45 metre kick into the hot spot but the only player there to mark it was from the other mob. Several other kicks into the prime scoring region were either intercepted or simply kicked to contests. We need to find some natural, instinctive forwards who can create separation from their opponents. It's clear players are trying to create chances in front of goal but our forwards are either out of positioned or unable to find separation. Or at least a specialist forward coach with a Gunstan like feel for the game.

Umpiring as bad at this level as the seniors. Tholstrup deserved to be rewarded for that tackle, not penalised.

Not much here that offers hope for the future. No impact from the tall forwards, Laurie as unreliable in front of goal as ever and Hawthorn as slick as their seniors: everything we are not

Spot on. Gunston's lead towards open space 30-40 metres out as the ball carrier heads towards goal, then with a shift in direction towards the corridor for two steps caused Turner to change stride, then to resume his original course towards that open space gifted him an uncontested mark. No fault of Turner's who was on the job but just one play in a master class. The second point is equally right. Gunston took several marks in the 15-40 metre space that was wide open. Hawks delivered it there and he knew to run into it. We tried it as well with a number of spearing passes into the hot spot at the PUNT ROAD end but no forward of ours knew to run to the spot and interceptions resulted. We seem not to know how to create space or how to use it, hence we won the inside 50s but never looked like winning the game.