nutbean

I got another article up http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110896/default.aspx

After reading this thread and seeing sarcasm going unrealised with no emoticon I think that all sarcasm should be followed by (TPFIC) Tongue - placed - firmly - in - cheek

abracadabra - expectation = reality (that sorta thing !)

Yes, that's always worked well. If someone either doesn't understand what to do or doesn't want to understand or plain doesnt follow instruction then just yell. That'll work.

I think I disagree with this. I think that Bailey would make it clear exactly what he thinks we need and then the recruiters go out and get them. I think it was Danners call to go and get hard bodies in the draft ( Sylvia/McLean) and I think it was Baileys decision after a draft of mids last year to go tall this year. It is then the recruiters job to present to DB the best options to fill that plan. I think that BP would have said to DB that Cook was the best KPP available at our pick but I think that DB would have made the call that we want a KPP (forward) at first pick.

I posted this over at 'ology We talk about age and want to keep dismissing it but I think the interesting thing is not only age of our list but the age of where our real talent is and where are great hope lies . We keep talking about average age of the list which is such a misleading figure. I love all the boys but am honest enough to know that all the excitement lies in our youth. The older players who we expect to lead the way are good but not good enough. Here's a good comparison from last night - over 25 years old - Burgoyne, Hodge, Mitchell, Bateman, Osbourne, Lewis, Gibson, Sewell, Birchall. Now compare our over 25 players and you can see our problem. Add Franklin and Roughhead at 24 and it amplifies the problem. And we talk about our desperation to get Scully, McKenzie and Morton back who are still kids. The most bizarre aspect of all of this, is most of us know where our talent lies and are desperately looking for wins - the natural order of things is the mid to older players 24-30 is where you talent is - these guys won the Hawks the game last night - with their youth ably assisting. We are looking to our most talented players - mostly under 23, our youth, to get us wins, with our leaders assisting. It ain't the way of the world.

Thats it exactly. It killed me to watch the first two Collingwood games. Just take a look at Harry O. He gets the ball in his back half and whats the first thing he does ? he takes off at a million miles an hour. And then he looks upfield and his teamates have spread just as quickly. He takes the game on and works harder than his opponent. It is not a worry that Collingwoods midfield kicks goals - the worry is their backline kicks goals ! Collingwood have twice as many men at every contest - it is not an accident - it is work ethic.

I know we can butcher the ball from the fullback area but can you imagine if you are a Grimes/Frawley/Garland and all our players are doing these half arsed half paced leads further up field or worse still, not moving at all. You must think to yourself - how the hell are we going to get the ball out of our defensive area. A good lesson to all our forwards - watch Chris Dawes last Saturday - certainly not quick - his commitment to keeping that ball in the Pies forward zone is fantastic. The making of the team will not be about when we have the ball in hand - it is what we do when we don't have the ball in hand. It's all about work ethic.

I watched the Pie's play and their game plan is no different to any other teams. What they did on Saturday we didn't do last night. 1/ The most important thing is to run - Collingwood players never stand still and never stop presenting options - constantly giving an out for their mates. Our inability to clear the lines is so apparent when we stand still. When we were prepared to run hard in the 2nd quarter look what happened - we broke the lines. 2/ Push up to the contest - also a noticeable. Every Pies player on Saturday gave the opposition no ground what so ever. No standing off, no corralling, no 3 metres. We were not prepared to do that. 3/ By gut running and pushing up to the contest, Collingwood always seemed to have 2 more players at every contest. 4/ However hard your opposition goes at the ball - you have to go harder You can keep your game plans - Football is not a difficult game - commit - run harder, go harder to the contest, want the ball more than your opponent. Do these things and the results follow.

Yeah - saw that. I'm talking about lining up for goal on a tight angle when you start outside the boundary line. If you dont run in straight and the umpire calls play on ( as he did twice done the city end for the dorks) and the play on call is still when you are out of bounds - isnt it out of bounds ?

Where we were sitting, we thought he put the hand up so abruptly, we got nervous that Flash had done something to himself. I am not convinced he didnt slightly tweak something because he looked a little proppy after that.

I may be over technical but twice yesterday (one was buddy) lining up for goal in the forward pocket. Running off the straight to open up the angle, the umpire called play on (rightly) once the player didnt run straight in. However in both cases the umpire called play on and the player hadn't even entered into the playing field. My question - if you line up for goal outside the boundary line and run off the straight - play on is called and you are out of bounds - isnt it a throw in ?

6 - Tapscott - hard at it 5- Bail - ran hard all day 4- Rivers - did his job - was courageous 3 - Martin - liked his game - good pace for a big man 2 - Sylvia 1 - Watts

Cheers boys ! The first comment after the siren from a fellow poster at the game was "watch the demonland ferals bay for blood" - you haven't disappointed. We weren't OUTCOACHED - we were OUTPLAYED. ( although Bailey amongst others couldnt get a kick). Our players,especially after half time, didnt go in hard enough,. Smashed in contested footy and smashed in clearances. Didn't push up hard enough to the contest. Our biggest issue is and will be for the next 2 seasons is our talent is all in the youngsters - not in our mid to older players.

I have been laughing over this line for the last 5 minutes. Do you have a copyright on it ? I believe I have occasion to use that line in my occupation at least a dozen times a day. Thanks for throwing that flaming turd out there..just love it !

Bennnell on Sunday where he kicked in the turbo charger and left Sumner in his wake was the best I have seen since Davey's early days. And I love that as opposed to the Jetta run last year where Frawley was keeping up, Bennell at top pace still had the balance to kick the goal ( as opposed to Jetta who lost the ball) Early on in the piece I didnt think that Bennell had that kind of pace - but he just always runs faster than whoever is chasing him.

I think this shows agility also comes into pace. The biggest knock on Bate is not his straight ahead pace, but the only pace he has is straight ahead - once he needs to turn it becomes his weakness - he has limited lateral movement. Another interesting aside is that both in rugby league and union they constantly talk about the ability to "Step off both feet" as a prized asset - it translates in AFL to agility. We talk about Bate being slow - it is not that he is slow - he is just limited to any sort of pace in a straight line - his weakness being lateral pace and very limited turning circle.

I hear you - REALLY nippy = the two fastest players at our club ( Blease by all reports has pace to burn) I find this pace discussion fascinating - see my separate thread

I have read in the Tapscott thread by a couple of poster that he may not be "quick" - to be honest, with limited viewing I am not really sure. I think it would be an interesting exercise to see thoughts on how we rate our players on pace. 5- Super quick 4 - Fast 3 - Average 2 - Below Average 1 - Slow I'll rate a couple of controversial ones ( the first 2) Bennell - first saw him I thought he was between average and fast 3.5 - but he seems to only go that bit faster than his opponents - Sunday the example of burning of his opponent and kicking the goal . I rate him 4.5 Jones - really interesting ! I sometimes think that he is slower of decision than foot - he at time can show really good pace - and other times looks really slow - but i think that is his decision making - I rate him 3 Jetta - can't figure him out as his elusiveness may make up for a yard shortness of pace ? 3 Davey - his pace and his decision making - 5 Trenners - 3.5 Scully - 4 On reflection - pace is also tied up with awareness and decision making - TJ seemed to be at a standstill but most times looked like he had an eternity to dispose.

Is it just me ? From Sundays match I didnt see the same lack of pace that has now been mentioned twice. I think that Jonesy can lumber a bit late in a match ( and he does play the wing) - do you think Tapscott is around the Jones pace mark ?

Thats the one ! Luke O'Sullivan. The Shaun Rehn was really pointed as this was single obstacle on the ground that caused an injury. The next step is Luke O'Sullivan - a whole ground that could be considered dangerous causing injury. Then we have Belly - the game itself that has dangers to ones health. Is the progression above illogical ?

Not wanting to sound "holier than thou" it does bring home to roost what players do risk on the field for our passion/pleasure/amusement and puts things into perspective. I have never been a player basher ( and never will be ) - happy to critique performance but I resist using words dud, spud or hack. This strengthens my resolve to never "go the man" but rather objectively give opinion on strengths and weaknesses of the various talents at the players disposal. ( after appropriate consideration !) Whilst Belly's limitations were documented his courage to put the head over the ball was never in question and it seems he has paid the price - I wish him all the best and hope he gets all the help needed.

Not sure who it was ( my dodgy memory) but I have heard on a couple of occasions clubs paying for clean up operations of players who have just gone into retirement. This is slightly different. I have no issue with treatment being paid by the club and I assume this is covered by the clubs insurance - interesting thought - would insurance covers players no longer on the list - I would have thought the premiums would be based on 44 players on your list - premiums would probably go up dramatically if players looked for medical expense coverage from the club post playing days . My thought is the club should be paying for these treatments. However in Bell's case it is more than covering medical costs - its is of the re-compensing nature. It does open up a can of worms - for example - Jimma has said on many occasions that his body was so battered from playing injured and with needles that he cant even kick a football with his son - does he have the same valid claim as Belly ? Can anyone remember the (Carlton ?) player who sued the league due to a knee reco required from a sub standard Etihad surface - was he seeking compensation over and above medical expenses ? I still think that diminished or altered lifestyle due to football injuries should be compensated. As someone earlier said - we ask players to put life and limb on the line for the club - we need to accept the consequences.

Its defending the indefensible that gets up my nose.

No I think you need to think - think after seeing more than one senior game - you have jumped to unbelievable conclusions . I have no idea if he is the complete package as I am suggesting that you have no idea as to him not being the complete package. (also Campbell Brown - international rules, 2006 ,2008 , all Australian 2007 - he has had a very impressive career). So I will test your opinion - Can I please have a hands up of everyone on the site who is prepared to say after seeing a couple of VFL games and practice games and one senior games that Tapscott does not possess the pace and agility compared to Matthew Whelan ? If I get enough people to say that the consensus is that Tapscott doesnt have the pace or agility of Whelan then I will stop posting on this subject.I am saying - how on earth can you be so definitive after one senior game viewing ? ( just to remind a few people - there were question marks on Bennells pace after his first couple of games - Bennell is just always that little bit faster than his opposition) Reading all the data on Tapscott at draft time - no problem with agility and pace - strength was strength, kicking and played much taller than 180cm good hands and leap - the only knock is that he didnt get the ball enough I just believe that you have made great leaps of imagination based on little to no actual data. Just to repeat one more time - I will not claim Tapscott to be anything except impressive in his first game - based on what I saw I did not see obvious weaknesses - give me 20 more games and I may form an opinion. My objection to your opinion is that you stated more than once his "obvious weaknesses". After 80 minutes TOG you have have got him down for obvious weaknesses ?????