The Chazz

Said all preseason (and to be fair, a big part of last year too) that Jones is done. In was often criticised for my strong view on it. I will say it again, for him to break the club games record, we won't be playing finals and he will be gifted the games to get there.

I also have regularly said that I just don't see in Smith what the coaches do.

Both played terrible last night. Not on their own, but the two that I have gone all-in on for many months just confirmed my doubts.

10 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

SNAP

The posters saying the defense is too small they compare quite well to the premiers

195cm - Astbury & Lever

193cm - Grimes & May

192cm Broad & Smith

What has that got to do with what I posted?

9 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Jordan as an emergency is also very interesting. He must be training really well

Sometimes this is somewhat of a false economy - it's used to try and get the player to lift more at training.

Kind of like saying "James, you're going well at training, so much so that you're on the cusp, but to turn that in to a proper selection, we just need you to lift to the next level".

38 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Lots of complaints about the defence's structure. But the structure is much more inline with the rest of the competition's top sides. Take last night, Collingwood, who's defence held up incredibly well for 3 qtrs of punishment. They only have 1 key defender Roughhead, 2 intercept players Howe and Moore, a solid role player Maynard an under 10 gamer in Madgen and rebound defender, Crisp and it appeared as Mayne spend a fair bit as the 7th defender/mid

On the other side we saw Richmond with again with just 1 Key defender Astbury, 2 interceptors in Grimes and Vlaustin, maybe even a 3rd if you count Broad 2 rebounders in Houli and Short add Baker as a small role player/rebounder. Richmond's line up is more aggressive and relies on their forwards and mids protecting their defenders as they can be exposed when there isn't much pressure up the ground (hmmm, this sounds familiar) 

A side note on the Eagles. The only reason their defence looks like it has more keys is because they have Barrass and McGovern is abnormally large for the Intercept defender role around the comp. Looking at some of the best and you get Howe, Lever, Haynes, Sicily all too undersized to be "Key Defenders". Not many clubs have the luxury to play 2 Key Defenders like the Eagles.

May, Lever, Smith, Jetta, Rivers, Salem and Harmes 

I'm not saying our lineup is 'better' than the most effective defences in the comp, we have a long way to go before we even put our hand up to join the discussion. But as a structure It's not a lot different.

A defensive unit is only as good as the pressure being put on up the field.  If we let opposition teams just waltz out of half back (our half forward), through the wings and deliver in to their forward 50 with pace and ease, it wouldn't matter who we have down back.

It's why, over the past 25 games, that we've made even some poor opposition defences look elite.

Let's face it, the 2008 draft was pretty ordinary.  A number of players selected are still on lists, but a huge majority of them are far from the top of their respective club (and many have also changed clubs).

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

So you're saying every time a side wins they are more professional than the side that loses?

If you are correct, and our players "felt" the suspension of the season more than West Coast's did, why is that such a disaster? Humans do not all react to things the same way and I do not expect our players to be robots and to block out every emotion. If they were affected by the suspension, I understand that. If they were affected more than West Coast was, I understand that too.

Clearly not saying that.  But let's face it, we have extensive history for not being prepared for some games.  I'm sure you can create your own list, but I'll start you off with the Gold Coast game last year, the Essendon game when they had most of their team out, Geelong 186.

I can remember going to some games where you could tell as plain as day during the pregame warm up if we were on or not.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I have no doubt the Collingwood players, Buckley and even McGuire mean no ill will to anyone based on their race. I also have no doubt that Lumumba's allegations are true (particularly as some like the nickname he was given "chimp" were backed up by several players including 3 indigenous players). It's the culture that needs to change to make sure it is understood why someone would have a negative reaction when being subjected to those comments and/or experiences. The culture is what makes it seem ok to make racist comments etc because we have a culture of taking the [censored] out of each other and people just need to toughen up if they can't hack it. But it is wreckless to assume that your experience is everyone's and that singling people out particularly when they belong to a minority with a history of oppression is going to have no ill effects.

I would be horrified if this happened at MFC and I assume many Collingwood supporters are too

As to why the Project swept it under the rug back in 2017 when the Lumumba doco came out - well Aly and Hellier are part of the infotainment industry in Melbourne a huge part of which is the AFL and the biggest club is Collingwood with a President with multiple media platforms. Do you really need to dig too far to figure out why they may not have made an issue of it?

Makes perfect sense, and exactly why it doesn't make sense.  From what I understand, Aly is put on this pedestal as someone to look up to, someone to listen to when he speaks, is very vocal about his religion, making sure that viewers understand that religions have their complexities.

Yet when he has the opportunity to open up on a serious issue like the HL one, what does he do?  Looks after himself.

And this guy is meant to be someone that our newer generations look up to and relate to.

11 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Not to make excuses. But isn’t it unrealistic to assume a team who’s average ladder position the past two years is mid table, would knock off the team who’s average ladder position is top 4, including winning a flag... on their deck.

Those wanting to stick the boot in seem to live in a fantasy land where everything is suddenly equal and it’s the players or coaches on the day that determines the result.

its denies the reality of where our group is at (and where West Coast are at), and is a kind of magical thinking (ie delusional). 

Paul, all due respects, but your post is riddled with excuses.

Firstly, basing an argument on the average of the last two years ladder position is an easy out.  Most were happy to write off our 2019 as an aberration.  In 2018 we played the Eagles in the Prelim, the previous year we were .5% short of playing finals, behind guess who?  The Eagles.

The issue of playing in Perth?  Wasn't an issue in Round 22, 2018 when we managed to beat them over there.  Same deck.

And wanting to stick the boots in?  Of course I do.  As I have previously stated, the glaring issues in 2019 revolved around our delivery inside F50.  We had an entire preseason to fix this.  What was the thing that stood out for me in the Round 1 2020 loss?  Our delivery inside F50.  Now, either our coaching group didn't think it needed addressing, or the players were/are unable to execute it.

Finally, you talk about where our group is at.  You tell me where it's at.  I' imagine if you ask any of the players on on list, or even the coaching group, they would expect that we are finals-worthy side.  So they should - our 2020 list hasn't had many significant changes since 2018.

Wouldn't hurt for you to read Ethan's post a few up from here.  It points out that mindsets, excuses and arguments like yours that need to stop, not the ones demanding improvement from a perennial underachieving club.

19 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

No there's not.

You're welcome to set your expectations as high as you want. If you choose to mark the team harshly for Round 1, you're entitled to. 2019 gives you that.

But I don't think it's unreasonable for others (myself included) to look at Round 1 in a different context and come away from it less disappointed than we otherwise might have been in "normal" circumstances.

It's very easy to sit at home and say "the players should have played to their best ability regardless of the suspension of the season". Very easy to say, very hard to do. 

I don't agree that West Coast played to any sort of different, or more professional, standard than us. Indeed, but for our finishing inside 50 the game was relatively even (both statistically and in terms of watching it and the general "feel"). 

The game was played under extremely odd circumstances and if our players were affected by them, I completely understand that. It is therefore my view that it is reasonable for any MFC supporter to take our Round 1 performance with a grain of salt.

This week, assuming no further changes to the AFL/COVID landscape, will be different. 

How can you not agree?  5 goals to none in the opening 20-odd minutes of a new season.  Even if we want to excuse them because of the bizarre circumstances going in to the game, it was clearly felt more by one side than the other.  That most certainly points to professionalism - one willing to not let adversity impact their own performance, and the other one did.

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Supporters making excuse after excuse and not demanding more and better is part of the reason the club is where it is. Winners wouldn’t accept or make excuses for our round 1 performance. After 2019, our players should have wanted to win and given it their all, no matter what. 

While this thread has gone off the main topic (which I definitely contributed to), it does make the whole Lumumba story somewhat intriguing.

You've got someone (Lumumba) raising serious racism concerns in one of our country's most recognisable brands (the AFL, and in particular the Collingwood Football Club), at a time when racism worldwide is a major headline.  Then we've got a TV program (which is meant to be a current affairs program), that traditionally are happy to investigate "popular" issues, willing to shelve (or somewhat dismiss) these accusations?  Why?  Have they dug deep and found nothing?  Are they too worried about their own individual reputations and employment prospects if they dig too deep?

Now we learn that Collingwood, on arguably one of the biggest football stages in the history of the game, giving a public show of support for the #BLM movement.  While it's reported to be player driven, they still have the same coach and president that were in charge when HL made these allegations, the president in particular having prior offences on the very topic.

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Part of me hopes that this has been investigated and there's a "nothing to see here" outcome.  On the other hand, if something has happened to HL and it's being easily dismissed, especially by programs like The Project, then what hope do we have moving forward of stamping this thing out of mainstream society?

There were a lot of reports about the use of Zoom during isolation, especially around conversations being hacked and inappropriate material being displayed by the hackers.

We would just need to make sure that if anything like this happens, that before we report it we check that it's not @Bitter but optimistic just logging in.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

To be honest I don't watch any of these infotainment channels but I assume it would be the same as a "lefty" given a right of response on one of the Sky news programs. All of these are privately owned networks so there is no compulsion for anyone to give equal time to the "other" side. That's why it is so important to keep publicly funded independent services and not gut them like the LNP is doing with the ABC.

I know we don't agree about our Round 1 performance, Dr, but I totally agree on your post here!

Just now, hardtack said:

Um, you're talking about a TV show.  Unless you want to start your own TV show, then there's not really any other way you're going to be able to respond anyway... try yelling at your TV; that might help.

That's why I choose not to watch the show, HT.

We have quite a simple life rule in our household, and that is if you are going to whinge about something, what are you going to do about it to change it.  In this case, I'm not interested at all in trying to start my own TV show (possibly more to the point that others wouldn't be interested!), so the simple solution is to take the action I have.    

15 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

One thing I will say though, he's a nifty guitarist.

(Think I've had my political fill for the day)

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Without continuing too much with this quickly derailing thread, away from the tele he's actually one of the most boringly normal people you'd ever meet. My opinion is he has to be a bit more 'out there' on tv given it's, well, tv, and also because he has to contrast/deal with the conservative commentators they often have on the show.

Anyways, 'left or right' will be the death of us all so I'm going to check out for now. Have a good one mate!

Hahaha, you're so funny, LN.  You say that you think you've had your political fill for the day, then you follow it up 8 minutes later with another political reference, which was totally unprovoked.  In that time, only one person added to the thread, SWYL, and he talked about playing the guitar.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I guess my perception is based on a scale of past experience. Thinking back to the "putrid" performances in 2012/13 I can't put round 1 in the same boat.

But it's semantics really, it was disappointing - if we lose on Saturday that will be the season done as far as I'm concerned. We should be putting the Blues away by 5 goals.

There's different levels of putrid, Dr, and Round 1 2020 was on one of those levels.

Perhaps I got sucked in to 2018 too much.  Perhaps I raised my expectations too highly for this group (both playing and coaching).

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Didn't say anything about Waleed. Didn't say anything about believing every word he says. Didn't say either 'left' or 'right' get everything right. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of implying right wing commentators don't have a platform.

 

Is this what I said?  Is this what I implied?  I'll give you the answer - NO to both.

29 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yeah there's a real absence of right-wing opinions in the media hey.... ?

So if a "lefty" says something that I don't agree with, does that mean I have to jump on one of the "righty" platforms to respond?

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's his job. You don't have to agree with him, but it would be pointless if all he did was read the autocue like a robotic newsreader.

As to Lumumba's comments, I'm quite surprised, given all the protests on racial issues in Australia and around the world during the last fortnight, that the claims he made haven't received more coverage. It suggests to me either that Collingwood has worked very hard to minimise the media damage or that the media have decided previously that Lumumba is an unreliable source. Could be both, of course. 

Is it?  Is that his job?  Thanks for reassuring me that I'm not missing anything by not watching it.  I'm not asking for scripted bulltish either. I want his opinion, but I also what him to acknowledge that he's not always right, or that there's often a whole lot of grey in many issues that he talks about. For him to dismiss such a sensitive topic like racism just backs my view.

The problem I have is that if I don't agree with him, where's my platform to offer a different perspective?  That's why I choose not to watch his show.

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was a disappointing game but it was round 1, in Perth, against the premiership favourite a couple of hours after the players were told theirs would be the last game of the season for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't happy with the game or the result, but putrid for me would mean getting blown out of the water like the Dogs did. We played well early, didn't convert our chances and lost the game in about 5 minutes. Not great but certainly not "putrid".

Please.  They should've been ready to fire based on their 2019 efforts (as well as their last game in 2018 at the same venue against the same opposition).  This was their first chance to start earning back some respect, mostly from their own supporters, and they turned up half asleep.  And what a cheap brush-off using the "last game for who knows how long" line.  Should've added to that motivation to put in a better performance.  Didn't seem to worry the Eagles, especially in the first quarter, that this could be their only game for the year.  They played like a true professional outfit that had one job to do and did it as they and their supporters would've expected.  We didn't.

And don't give me this "in Perth" excuse.  We actually play well over there.

It took us 80 minutes to lose the game, but the result was beyond doubt by quarter time (and I'm being generous there).

Putird doesn't mean getting blown away.  We were putrid against the Gold Coast last year and still won.  And we were putrid, especially Quarter 1 Round 1, 2020.  What was disappointing was that the Eagles clearly took the foot off our throat for the rest of the game and we were still not good enough to threaten at any stage.  But if your definition of putrid means getting blown away, why don't you go back to the score at quarter time - they kicked 5 goals and we didn't kick any.  Is that blown away enough for you?

Lift your standards and expectations, Dr.

26 minutes ago, The Third Eye said:

Surprised that nobody’s commented on Heritier Lumumba’s attack on Collingwood for what he claims to be the culture of systemic racism at the club while he was there. 

He left the Magpies after a decorated career of 199 games including a premiership and came to Melbourne where he played another 24 games. He hasn’t been critical of his time with the Dees.

He was also backed up by other indigenous players at CFC but rubbished by Peter Helier and Walid Aly on the Project.

That's why I have no interest in watching The Project.  Hellier can be amusing at times, but is cringeworthy when not.  He knows how powerful the Collingwood FC and it's head honchos are in the media and communications areas, which is where Hellier gets his bread buttered.  He's not going to ruffle feathers among the CFC power-brokers.

And Aly?  From the very few snippets I have heard from him, I think he uses his position on the show to cram his opinion/agenda down our throats, while very rarely covering all angles, or at the very minimum, looking at it objectively.  The Lumumba story is a classic example of that.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We were not "putrid". We lost the game in about 5 minutes in the first quarter. The rest of the game was relatively even albeit frustrating for our lack of finish in front of goal.

Your expectation is a lot lower than mine, Doctor.

I, too, think we were putrid.  I'm not letting the final margin cloud my judgement.  We had one key area to improve on from 2019, and it was glaringly obvious that we didn't.  A terrible disappointment.  I just hope, somehow, that we've managed to use the last 70-odd days to somehow fix it.  

31 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Simply just awesome..

All 3 of our 2019 draft selections are playing.

Big tick for Jason Taylor.

Way too early for a big tick.

Let's face it, with the list reductions, loss of income and pay cuts that are going to take place from 2021, it might see the return of players needing to have a job during business hours, and will be made to train at night.

Seriously though, I'm doubtful of it returning to that type of scenario, but it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

6 hours ago, Gunna’s said:

Geelong have been doing this for years. Driving home from work the lights are always on when their upcoming game is a night fixture. 
We need a proper base/home if we are to become elite. 

More often than not that's their VFL team.