 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PyreneesPie 
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: |
At some stage, some of you people need to give up your carping. These guys are all-time Collingwood greats, playing through a tough season with not much grown-up help. |
Unbelievable!!! You're judging the calibre of other posters' comments as carping because the players concerned are Collingwood greats, yet you stood at the head of the line to throw sh*t upon one of our greatest for months on end, at every opportunity!!!!  |
|
|
|
 |
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree. I thought our ball movement was so much better tonight, and for most of the game. After the 2nd quarter, where we regressed, I feared for the worst. But it was a great credit to our young team that they continued to go for aggressive, fast ball movement.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| doriswilgus wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | doriswilgus wrote: | | Well Port beat a half AFL half VFL side with a lot of help from the umpires,so nothing to get excited about for them.Sadly,I think Sidebottom is finished.I’d be surprised if he played on next year.He just doesn’t seem to have his heart in it,and hasn’t since he went walkabout last year . |
What game were you watching? 7 clearances, 26 disposals and 10 score involvements playing as an inside mid to cover for the injured captain, including being forced to play as a defensive mid against Wines.
So, if I said to you that Sidebottom was involved in every second Collingwood score, I would be wrong. Because he was involved in more than that.
Good grief. |
What game were you watching?You wouldn’t get 26 more ineffective possessions than he got tonight.I know it’s impossible for you to see any wrong with Sidebottom or any other player you like,which is probably only Grundy,but you do need to open that one eye of yours that seems to be permanently closed with your favourites. |
For goodness' sake, he was involved in better than every second score Collingwood managed. So, let's not talk drivel about ineffective possessions. His disposal efficency, by the way, was 73%, which is remarkable for a player who had half of his ball as contested possessions. Wines, eg, went at 57%. Boak also went at 73%.
You can be as unfair as you wish about it - the quality of Sidebottom's work and the hard, in and under efforts at the contest (by a player who is not an inside mid) are borne out by the stats. Do you actually get that Sidebottom's 10 score involvements were the most on the ground for either team? |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | doriswilgus wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | doriswilgus wrote: | | Well Port beat a half AFL half VFL side with a lot of help from the umpires,so nothing to get excited about for them.Sadly,I think Sidebottom is finished.I’d be surprised if he played on next year.He just doesn’t seem to have his heart in it,and hasn’t since he went walkabout last year . |
What game were you watching? 7 clearances, 26 disposals and 10 score involvements playing as an inside mid to cover for the injured captain, including being forced to play as a defensive mid against Wines.
So, if I said to you that Sidebottom was involved in every second Collingwood score, I would be wrong. Because he was involved in more than that.
Good grief. |
What game were you watching?You wouldn’t get 26 more ineffective possessions than he got tonight.I know it’s impossible for you to see any wrong with Sidebottom or any other player you like,which is probably only Grundy,but you do need to open that one eye of yours that seems to be permanently closed with your favourites. |
For goodness' sake, he was involved in better than every second score Collingwood managed. So, let's not talk drivel about ineffective possessions. His disposal efficency, by the way, was 73%, which is remarkable for a player who had half of his ball as contested possessions. Wines, eg, went at 57%. Boak also went at 73%.
You can be as unfair as you wish about it - the quality of Sidebottom's work and the hard, in and under efforts at the contest (by a player who is not an inside mid) are borne out by the stats. Do you actually get that Sidebottom's 10 score involvements were the most on the ground for either team? |
Sidey got cheap kicks all around the ground.
lead up and got numerous 10 m kicks on a lead most times.
As usual he didn't chase on a number of occasions.
He played ok tonite.
But he wasn't anywhere near the best. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ So, the 7 clearances (including 3 centre clearances) and 13 contested possessions are to be included in the "cheap kicks all around the ground"? |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | doriswilgus wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | doriswilgus wrote: | | Well Port beat a half AFL half VFL side with a lot of help from the umpires,so nothing to get excited about for them.Sadly,I think Sidebottom is finished.I’d be surprised if he played on next year.He just doesn’t seem to have his heart in it,and hasn’t since he went walkabout last year . |
What game were you watching? 7 clearances, 26 disposals and 10 score involvements playing as an inside mid to cover for the injured captain, including being forced to play as a defensive mid against Wines.
So, if I said to you that Sidebottom was involved in every second Collingwood score, I would be wrong. Because he was involved in more than that.
Good grief. |
What game were you watching?You wouldn’t get 26 more ineffective possessions than he got tonight.I know it’s impossible for you to see any wrong with Sidebottom or any other player you like,which is probably only Grundy,but you do need to open that one eye of yours that seems to be permanently closed with your favourites. |
For goodness' sake, he was involved in better than every second score Collingwood managed. So, let's not talk drivel about ineffective possessions. His disposal efficency, by the way, was 73%, which is remarkable for a player who had half of his ball as contested possessions. Wines, eg, went at 57%. Boak also went at 73%.
You can be as unfair as you wish about it - the quality of Sidebottom's work and the hard, in and under efforts at the contest (by a player who is not an inside mid) are borne out by the stats. Do you actually get that Sidebottom's 10 score involvements were the most on the ground for either team? |
I can see that I’ve raised your hackles,very easy to do when it comes to one of your favourites lI Sidebottom had more score involvements than any player then that’s good.
But what does a score involviement entail?Just a handball to someone who passes it it someone else and then to someone else who goals?I think all this proves is that stats can be very misleading.You can have a lot of possessions and score involvements without having a real impact on the game,and that’s how I and most people watching the game saw Sidebottom’s performance tonight.I don’t think anyone would have out him in our best five players for example. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can there's no merit in trying to persuade you that your statement that "You wouldn’t get 26 more ineffective possessions than he got tonight" must, merely by reference to the fact that 10 of the 26 were score involvements, plainly be farcical, so just have at it. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
sorry, please delete
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins
Last edited by Magpietothemax on Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
When you weigh everything up, it was a reasonable effort from such a young team.
The side is making a real effort to take the game on. That comes with risks and when youre asking a bunch of kids to buy in on playing direct, then mistakes will happen.
We lost Pendles before qtr time, Adams was severely hampered after half time and we played against 23 Port players. We had our moments but again, playing four quarters is beyond a young teams capabilities.
There were some great signs from the teenagers tonight. When it comes to the kids who have played less than 10 games, you’re looking for occasional good moments under pressure, while anything more is just a bonus.
I thought there were a lot of good moments from a number of our young blokes tonight. There will be a lot of organic growth in 2022. |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw you win,you’ve convinced me now.He was a great player tonight and I’m absolutely delighted with how he played tonight.So that makes two of us now.If only we could persuade all those other ignoramuses out there how well he played,hey?
Last edited by doriswilgus on Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Madgen doesn’t get many plaudits on here, but he was clearly one of our best in a game where the midfield was well beaten and the forwards didn’t make the most of their chances. Great kicking, good decisionmaking and put his body on the line a number of times when it counted.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| derkd wrote: | | The result was about expected. But wow compared to the way the Pies were playing earlier this season. I quite enjoyed this match...the gave it a go and played with some energy. That is all asked. |
Fully agree, and i enjoy watching our kids, they have great potential, as Jonathan Brown said earlier tonight. The future is good. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Madgen doesn’t get many plaudits on here, but he was clearly one of our best in a game where the midfield was well beaten and the forwards didn’t make the most of their chances. Great kicking, good decisionmaking and put his body on the line a number of times when it counted. |
He was very reliable and I was pleased for him. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I thought they played well enough to win and I feel for them all.
Umpiring was beyond incompetent.
The prosecution presents the Q2 highlights.
Adams MUST increase his handball & long-direct-kick / short-kick ratio when outside 60m.
Hope Lycett hangs. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| masoncox wrote: | The trouble with Grundy is he doesn't have an impact!!!!!!!!
Like when Dixon beat him and a goal was scored. |
I disagree with the bolded sentence. He has a huge negative impact. No kidding. He has so many oppo score involvements (one you mention in your next sentence) and no one here ever says anything. Folks just pretend they don't happen. But I'll save a longer comment on this topic for the Grundy thread...
Lemme just say now that I have seen the meaningful data that show how many oppo scores come from him. (So anyone trying to talk up his Collingwood score involvements is in for a nasty shock.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
