| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Museman wrote: | We lost a game of football we should not have lost last week.
We made 1 enforced change(a bad one at that)
That right there is the acceptance of mediocrity. |
Gee, and just who else should have been included in the side? Which of the other inexperienced or untried kids would have done better? Or maybe you want our experienced players like Armstrong or Dwyer or maybe even Young included? |
For starters, Kennedy or even Dwyer, would have offered more than Blair last night. |
You feel free to make those sort of guesses but I'm not too sure Blair is the selection decision most are querying or suggesting cost us. Reality is neither Kennedy or Dwyer were ever a chance to force Blair out but don't let that stop you throwing up options. |
|
|
|
 |
STOKA35 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Mount Barker. South Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Was there last night had our chances to stay in touch at qtr time with white set shot and Elliot dropped mark. These are the Moments from being good to being great hawthorn would have made them stick. Port killed us in the first term with clearances and there outside run. Conditions were very slippery after Half time.
Probably our forwards let us down not being able to convert as we got it in there plenty of times in that last qtr. Needed to just play wet weather footy keep it moving forward, at times we played to cute or tried to play dry weather football.
We were lucky to be that close in the end if that's was ports best effort they not that great. Bit harsh on Moore you got to start somewhere, Elliot body language at times not great lack of tackle pressure? You look at our forward line and there is a lot of talent there. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Museman wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Museman wrote: | We lost a game of football we should not have lost last week.
We made 1 enforced change(a bad one at that)
That right there is the acceptance of mediocrity. |
Gee, and just who else should have been included in the side? Which of the other inexperienced or untried kids would have done better? Or maybe you want our experienced players like Armstrong or Dwyer or maybe even Young included? |
You are taking the p! $$ right kennedy has done more than enough, as has marsh....
It doesn't matter that much, you are trying to ingrain a win at all costs attitude and implying near enough is good enough does not do this, you only need look at the first quarter for results....attitude simply not what it needed to be.....geeeeeee i wonder why. |
Gee, how could the selection committee overlook Kennedy and Marsh then, must be incompetence.
And the team has adopted a "near enough is good enough" attitude. I haven't heard anyone from the club express that. Was it announced in a newsletter or something? |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ThePieMind wrote: | | Fire Up wrote: | | fasolo vfl is looking good for rest of the year |
Not sure which game you watched - huge FWD pressure with 7 tackles - equal 2nd behind Swanny with 8.
Bucks will be loving his work right now. |
Yep, this. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| TimetoFly wrote: | This loss is all in bucks.. He was our worst offender performer tonight. Picking 5 talls in wet conditions and allowing broadbent to be lose man in last quarter when we should Of went man on man.
He has had a good year but last night it is all in him.. Disgusting effort
If we miss finals again after 8-3 start then questions need to be asked.. I can take the freo & Hawks loss as much as they hurt but losing a game because your coach had a brain fade is unacceptable..
Never been so angry about a loss before |
Is this the start of the "sack Bucks" push? |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mudlark wrote: | I went to the game last night. Conditions were atrocious and as far as the moronica on this board go,Collingwood are far from "Gutless" and "Season over".What a pack of wankers you are.But I expect nothing less from the usual array of clowns.
The game was lost in the first qtr. ANOTHER sitter missed by Jesse White early in the first term.The game was lost early when someone in the backline decided it might be a good idea to let Chad Wyngard run around on his lonesome and kick 3 goals.The game was lost early first term when Jamie Elliott dropped a magnificently delivered ,lace out pass,20 meters out and Port took it down the other end and Wyngard was was there ,by himself, to kick a goal.
We battled it out and I was proud to be a Collingwood supporter last night.
As far as Bucks being "Out coached"?? I reiterate that some people here wouldn't know shite from clay and perhaps they'd be better off supporting Bichmond or in other cases ,the Bulldogs,who are "Apparently??" going to overtake us. I certainly wouldn't miss any of them. |
Well said.
Not sure if my tolerance for fools is getting lower in my old age but this site seems to be getting worse. So many phucking experts.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Museman wrote: | We lost a game of football we should not have lost last week.
We made 1 enforced change(a bad one at that)
That right there is the acceptance of mediocrity. |
Gee, and just who else should have been included in the side? Which of the other inexperienced or untried kids would have done better? Or maybe you want our experienced players like Armstrong or Dwyer or maybe even Young included? |
Dwyer plays instead of Grundy and we win the game, never seen the knock on Dwyer, especially in the wet, he is a good 21-22 player |
Easy to say when there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove your assertion. That change could have just as likely resulted in an even greater defeat. Agree Dwyer very much under rated but I'd prefer to play Kennedy given longer term development.
And if we were to lose a tall then I suggest Moore most likely to miss. |
|
|
|
|
Museman
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Museman wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Museman wrote: | We lost a game of football we should not have lost last week.
We made 1 enforced change(a bad one at that)
That right there is the acceptance of mediocrity. |
Gee, and just who else should have been included in the side? Which of the other inexperienced or untried kids would have done better? Or maybe you want our experienced players like Armstrong or Dwyer or maybe even Young included? |
You are taking the p! $$ right kennedy has done more than enough, as has marsh....
It doesn't matter that much, you are trying to ingrain a win at all costs attitude and implying near enough is good enough does not do this, you only need look at the first quarter for results....attitude simply not what it needed to be.....geeeeeee i wonder why. |
Gee, how could the selection committee overlook Kennedy and Marsh then, must be incompetence.
|
little doubt.....happy to see you finding some perspective. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| melliot wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | melliot wrote: | Haven't read the whole thread. But IMO . .....
Lost it at the selection table.
7 talls in the side. On a dry day I'd be worried it was too top heavy and exposed for lack of run and ground ball ability.
On a clear night with dew on the grass. Or if anyone bother to check the weather new rain was likely, the tall side was always going to be exposed. |
Port's wasn't |
The flip side of course is that we could have got an advantage with more running power on a wet night in place of a second ruck.
The tall forwards on both sides had minimal impact scoreboard wise. |
Thanks Swoop. Pretty much my thinking.
Port may have had more talls when you look just at the height stat. But some don't actually play like true talls. For example, Westhoff, actually can play as a wingman. He is very mobile and agile and good on the deck.
Where as our talls are more traditional types. ie. not great off the deck.
Regardless of what Port did/does, our side was completely unbalanced. The ball was always going to be on the deck a whole heap.
We needed runners and ground ball winning players. So it completely bewilders me why Williams was replaced with Grundy. I thought Scharenberg or Kennedy especially was the obvious (maybe not so Obvious??) choice.
Considering the forecast conditions, it was bewildering, why we didn't swap Moore for another medium or small? Yet we added a tall, not reduced the numbers.
If the talls we had were stars, then I could accept trying to fit them all in. But their not stars. Not yet. "Horses for Courses" should have been applied.
Two additional runners and ground winning players (instead of Grundy and Moore)would have made a massive difference.
The 1st Quarter smashing in better conditions even showed our lack of mobility. We got cut up for run and clearances.
Water under the bridge now. Must make sure the same mistake is not made again. |
I said before the game that I thought given the conditions and the overall pace of Port that of the 3 emergencies Kennedy should play but that it was easy to justify the inclusion of Grundy given the overall height of Port (Shulz, Westhoff, Ryder in F50) and the fact they have 2 genuine ruckmen. To suggest it was a massive fail by the selectors (and/or Bucks) is wrong even though it didn't work as they'd likely expected. Same structure with Reid or Keeffe instead of Moore may well have led to a better result but who can say for sure.
Westhoff was the only forward tall who had any significant impact but I think he garners much of his advantage losing opponents via midfield rotations and he's no mug. He's a 28yo with 170 odd games to his name and a difficult opponent at the best of times. He, Wines and Gray absolutely destroyed us early (when we probably lost the game) and having Kennedy in the team instead of Grundy was hardly likely to alter that. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| TimetoFly wrote: | This loss is all in bucks.. He was our worst offender performer tonight. Picking 5 talls in wet conditions and allowing broadbent to be lose man in last quarter when we should Of went man on man.
He has had a good year but last night it is all in him.. Disgusting effort
If we miss finals again after 8-3 start then questions need to be asked.. I can take the freo & Hawks loss as much as they hurt but losing a game because your coach had a brain fade is unacceptable..
Never been so angry about a loss before |
You cannot be serious - where were you in 2002, 2003 and 2011? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Keep your heads down, lads. The rewards will follow hard work like that.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| On a positive note,this current block of four hard games that the A.F.L has kindly given us is the hardest patch of games we'll have to encounter all season.It will get easier after next week's game. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| doriswilgus wrote: | | On a positive note,this current block of four hard games that the A.F.L has kindly given us is the hardest patch of games we'll have to encounter all season.It will get easier after next week's game. |
It better get easier, because we're struggling to make the 8 just at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
TimetoFly
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | TimetoFly wrote: | This loss is all in bucks.. He was our worst offender performer tonight. Picking 5 talls in wet conditions and allowing broadbent to be lose man in last quarter when we should Of went man on man.
He has had a good year but last night it is all in him.. Disgusting effort
If we miss finals again after 8-3 start then questions need to be asked.. I can take the freo & Hawks loss as much as they hurt but losing a game because your coach had a brain fade is unacceptable..
Never been so angry about a loss before |
Is this the start of the "sack Bucks" push? |
I think u will find that I am a bucks advocate but he has a shocker in every department last night. Selection match ups & allowing a loose man in defence. Jury is still out with him, Derek hine is out Best asset now we wait and see if bucks can use the list at his diaposal.
Ethier way bucks has been good this year, so he is allowed a shocker I guess.
_________________
Collingwood a way of life! |
|
|
|
|
richo
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Rumour I heard was that Westhoff said "need head" to Adams in the pack. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
