What's our ideal best 23 for September?

This is a Collingwood Bulletin Board - use this forum for general, Pies-related topics. For other footy topics, use Nick's Other AFL forum, and for non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar. For non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.

Moderator: bbmods

User avatar
Posts: 21939
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:08 pm

What's our ideal best 23 for September?

Post by RudeBoy »

Obviously, there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and the finals, but I wondered what our best possible line-up might be, now that we've seen a bunch of newbies perform important roles for us.

With the hopeful inclusion of McStay, alongside Krueger, I don't believe there's room for Cox in our best 23. On his day Cox is very good, but in truth, there are far too many games, where he is almost a liability. Assuming a full list, with no more injuries, which is unlikely I know, my wish list for our September push would look something like this.

B: Maynard Frampton. Howe
HB: Quaynor. Moore. Noble

C: WHE Pendles J. Daicos
FOLL: Cameron, JDG, N. Daicos

HF: McCreery. Checkers Lipinski
F: Hill McStay. Elliott

IC: Crisp, Krueger, Harrison, Sidey, Mitchell (sub)

EM: Dean, Richards, Schultz
Posts: 4372
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:11 am
Location: Yarrawonga

Post by perthmagpie »

I have it on excellent authority that McStay will play VFL straight after the bye. Also we are being strategically cautious with our returning champions. Cox will be ready to play against Carlton.
Magpies love pies(Lol)
User avatar
Posts: 50456
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
Location: the edge of the deep green sea

Post by David »

Can't disagree too much with your line-up, Rudeboy, though I'd probably have Dean and Schultz in instead of Frampton and Kreuger, just. Only question mark I have about leaving those two out would be whether Cameron can ruck 90% of the game with occasional help from, say, McStay.

Would love to find a spot for Richards but might be hard if we have a full squad to choose from. McCreery might be the most at risk there.

Sullivan would have to be the unluckiest to be left out of that 26 on current form. But agree that he and Macrae probably make way when Pendlebury, De Goey and Mitchell return.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Posts: 6620
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:03 am

Post by Pies2016 »

I was afraid this thread was going to pop up sometime soon. Great talking point but you can absolutely guarantee there will be players unavailable come September ….assuming we make it.
MacRae loves pressure, pressure and more pressure, so I tend to think he will go for pace and the ability to hunt, as opposed to the big bodies when the time comes. We play undersized every week and we won a flag with one credentialed key forward on the day. As long as Checkers and McStay are playing together, I’m not sure there will be much room for Frampton and Krueger in the best 23. I feel like Dean, Schultz and Cox ( subject to form ) are all in our best 23 at the expense of the two big boys and maybe Mitchell. I want to see Mitchell when he eventually comes back but he could yet potentially be superfluous to our needs with the centre clearance ball winning abilities of Nick, DeGoey, Crisp and Pendles.
Richards is the wild card, for mine. If he keeps up his current form when he returns, I don’t see how he misses out but just don’t ask me who he replaces.
User avatar
Posts: 28692
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End

Post by Jezza »

Finding it difficult to narrow this down to a starting 23.

Among RB's team, I think Mitchell and Kreuger are the most vulnerable. Mitchell's absence has been more than supplemented by N Daicos and Crisp playing in the middle and winning clearances.

I think Schultz is best 23. One of our best pressure players and in finals where the turnover game takes precedence, his forward half pressure acts would be significant.
🏆 | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 🏆
User avatar
Posts: 21939
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:08 pm

Post by RudeBoy »

Don't be afraid P2016. It's all just for fun. :)

I take your point about Fly liking a fast, running team. Nevertheless, the team I've selected is no less fast than the team we fielded in last year's finals series. I've simply replaced Cox and Murphy with Frampton and Kreuger. Remember, we had McStay in our team until he got injured in the Prelim.

I think Cameron can carry most of the ruck load, with support from a combination of McStay, Frampton and Krueger. To my mind this would be a faster and more mobile team than one containing Cox.
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:27 pm

Post by inxs88 »

Nobody loves a "best team scenario" more than me. Here goes:

B: Maynard Dean Howe
HB: Quaynor Moore Steele
C: J Daicos Crisp Lipinski
HF: Schultz Mihocek McCreery
F: Elliott DeGoey McStay
F: Cameron P'bury N Daicos
ICH: WHE, Noble, Richards, Hill
SUB: Harrison

Changes to Kings Birthday team:


* Richards
* P'bury
* DeGoey
* McStay
* Mihocek
* Elliott


* Kreuger
* Markov
* Sullivan
* Bytel
* Frampton
* F Macrae


* Mitchell: unlucky but bad feet have been surpassed by Crisp's speed
* Cox: simply doesn't deserve it
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum
User avatar
Posts: 2859
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:58 pm

Post by dalyc »

inxs88 wrote:^* Cox: simply doesn't deserve it
Cox is not undeserving. The very fact that he was close to losing his eyesight playing for us is deserving enough. He’s a big match player who takes his time to build into a season. Come finals he’ll be critical.
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better
Posts: 6620
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:03 am

Post by Pies2016 »

A couple points to consider re the above. We all seem to agree, there needs to be an allowance for a second ruckman in the team, albeit not a major role. I’m working on the fact that a second ruckman should still be a ruckman and not just tall. What if Cameron went down early ? The only time the Dees got back in the game on Kings birthday was when Frampton went into the ruck. You really do at least like your ruckmen to have some ruck craft. That’s why I’m putting Cox in on the bench. Also means Cameron gets a decent rest rather than being run into the ground because we couldnt trust our second ruck to be competitive.
Krueger is the other point. Right now the sample size is so small, he’s probably best kept to one side until we either see more or he gets injured again. Can’t argue it was a very impressive game on a big stage but it was still only one game. In truth, if he was to do that every week from now until September, he probably passes McStay in the pecking order.
And yes RB, it certainly is for fun and let’s be honest, it’s not like we haven’t all thought it about it at some stage since Monday
Last edited by Pies2016 on Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 9827
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175

Post by Skids »

dalyc wrote: Cox is not undeserving. The very fact that he was close to losing his eyesight playing for us is deserving enough. He’s a big match player who takes his time to build into a season. Come finals he’ll be critical.
He certainly is. There hasn't been one finals series we've played that he hasn't kicked a goal or 4.
Was instrumental in our premiership finals series with just shy of 100 hit outs and some telling marks late in games. Good thing Fly and crew are just a tad sharper than NBB posters :wink:
Don't count the days, make the days count.
User avatar
Posts: 1467
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Post by mattdally »

Interesting hypotheticals.
I think we're pretty strong across the park when we get our core back.
Doubtful Elliott will play again, so I will leave him out of the team at this stage.
If Kruugs strings 2-3 weeks together and has a similar impact to KB game then he stays and we become real dangerous with Checkers and McStay there as well.

B: IQ Moore Maynard
HB: Pendles Howe Noble
C: Daicos Daicos Sidebottom
HF: WHE McStay Lipinski
F: Hill Mihocek Schultz
R: Cameron JDG Crisp
Int: Harrison Kruger Richards McCreery Cox
Emerg: Frampton Markov Mitchell
User avatar
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:51 pm
Location: Melbourne S.E.Suburbs

Post by Take_a_Screamer »

I would first have a strong spine to be feared.


Then fill in the flanks (assuming Elliott not available):-

B: Maynard, Howe, Quaynor, Noble
C: WHE, Jaicos
F: Hill, Harrison, Schultz, Checkers

Then the movable parts:-

FOL: Cameron, Crisp, Naicos - this trio is established
IC: Sidebottom, JDG, Mitchell, Richards, Dean (sub)
Ash Johnson...you beauty
Johnson Screamer @ https://www.afl.com.au/video/931485/joh ... -epic-mark? ❤️️
User avatar
stui magpie
Posts: 54491
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
Location: In flagrante delicto

Post by stui magpie »

I'll start with the 2023 Premiership team.

McStay in for Frampton who moves back to replace Murphy. (Depending on opponent, I could have Dean replace Frampton down back)

Schultz in for Ginni.

That's about it. You can make arguments about Noble v Markov and Mitchell v Fin (I think Mitchell if fit and firing offers more in finals, depending on the opponent)

The key difference between this year and last year is we have more depth players with exposed good AFL form so the last 2-3 selections could go any way.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
User avatar
warburton lad
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:47 am

Post by warburton lad »

Agree with Stui Magpie

* Frampton back for Murphy
* Schultz in for Ginnivan
* McStay in for Elliott

I would keep Markov over Noble if we play the Swans
Mitchell plays- full stop- he was excellent in the Grand Final last year...

HF: Lipinski McStay McCreery
F: Hill. Mihocek. Schultz
Firm in the belief that number 17 flag is only months away...
User avatar
Posts: 12355
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:21 pm
Location: Lexus Centre

Post by eddiesmith »

Cox is definitely first choice and I understand some people have always disliked the big American, but we’re not going into a final with one average ruckman.
Post Reply