Collingwood’s forward line 2005 ranked 16th in Comp: Official AFL stat.

[Vinnie Vegas]

Out of curiosity, how many games did we have Buckley, Tarrant, Rocca, Trav Cloke, Didak and Caracella (our likely forward line for next year) all healthy?

What's that? None? Not one single game with a full healthy forward line?

Good point once again parrot.

 

[jefffff34]

You forgot Fraser and Rusling.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

You forgot Fraser and Rusling.

Indeed I did, Hoggy, indeed I did.

 

[boof]

Collingwood scored 1884 points in 2005, the lowest in the AFL. Collingwood’s forward line is therefore ranking 16th i.e. last. Obvious points sometimes need reiterating.

Carlton finished 16th last season and are therefore the worst team in the competition. Obvious points sometimes need reiterating.

 

[mediumsizered]

Out of curiosity, how many games did we have Buckley, Tarrant, Rocca, Trav Cloke, Didak and Caracella (our likely forward line for next year) all healthy?

What's that? None? Not one single game with a full healthy forward line?

Good point once again parrot.

When will Buckley ever be healthy? Even Malthouse has conceded he will have limited input for the rest of his career.

 

[MarkT]

When will Buckley ever be healthy? Even Malthouse has conceded he will have limited input for the rest of his career.

He is healthy and Malthouse has said every year since he arrived at Collingwood that they can't rely on Buckley for ever. The problem is Malthouse hasn't been able to build the midfield than can afford to be minus Buckley. Meanwhile we'll just have to wait and see what Buckley is still capable of and exactly how Malthouse uses him.

 

[hotpie]

He is healthy and Malthouse has said every year since he arrived at Collingwood that they can't rely on Buckley for ever. The problem is Malthouse hasn't been able to build the midfield than can afford to be minus Buckley. Meanwhile we'll just have to wait and see what Buckley is still capable of and exactly how Malthouse uses him.

Hopefully 60% forward, 20% defence/midfield, 20% bench. Thats the right mix to ensure his longevity and get maximum value out of his old body. It requires some fresh blood in the midfield - Egan, Didak, maybe Rusling, Swan, Johnson, etc.

 

[MarkT]

People are too quick to dismiss a bloke of his ability and professionalism as a front line midfield option. He'll go forward if he isn't that but I think he is. I am terrified though that when MM gets his 2 year extension in about round 7 he starts coaching for 2008 by running midfielders who aren't ready and wasting Buckley up forward when we have forward options.

 

[JeffDunne]

People are too quick to dismiss a bloke of his ability and professionalism as a front line midfield option.

Certainly agree with that.

A fit Buckley is still Collingwood's best midfield option.

 

[hotpie]

People are too quick to dismiss a bloke of his ability and professionalism as a front line midfield option. He'll go forward if he isn't that but I think he is. I am terrified though that when MM gets his 2 year extension in about round 7 he starts coaching for 2008 by running midfielders who aren't ready and wasting Buckley up forward when we have forward options.

He'll do the job in the middle, no problem. For a year. I'd rather have him at full forward for four years than centre for one. And I'd rather a fully fit Didak and Johnson were given the role of senior midfielders along with Holland, with youngters around them learning the ropes, while Licuria Burns and Buckley enter the twilight years and play cameos in the middle.

 

[mediumsizered]

Certainly agree with that.

A fit Buckley is still Collingwood's best midfield option.

And therein lies a problem for Collingwood. By now the likes of O'Bree, Holland and the departed Woewodin should have stepped into the breach and taken the pressure off Buckley to carry the midfield. No club can rely on having a 33 year old as their best player or best midfield option. The same applies to Carlton with Kouta and Essendon with Hird. Time for others to step up.

 

[Nardz]

When will Buckley ever be healthy? Even Malthouse has conceded he will have limited input for the rest of his career.

limited input doesnt mean unhealthy, it means the guy will be 33 during next season, and he won't be playing like he was in his brownlow year, especially after his injury setbacks since then. limited input though, by nathan buckley's standard is more input than any of carlton's rabble.

He successfuly came back from his operation and was rather 'healthy' for the 2nd half of the season. he's started a preseason, and is still healthy after the preseason camp.

of course anything can happen between now and round one, and even round 22, but so far, he's healthy.

 

[hotpie]

And therein lies a problem for Collingwood. By now the likes of O'Bree, Holland and the departed Woewodin should have stepped into the breach and taken the pressure off Buckley to carry the midfield. No club can rely on having a 33 year old as their best player or best midfield option. The same applies to Carlton with Kouta and Essendon with Hird. Time for others to step up.

Bit harsh on Holland. He had a fantastic 2005.

But I agree with you. We shouldnt rely on Buckley in the middle and we shouldnt play him there for extended periods. I'd rotate Buckley Burns and Lucuria through a forward line/bench/midfield rotation , and force the younger midfielders to step up and deliver the goods.

 

[MarkT]

He'll do the job in the middle, no problem. For a year. I'd rather have him at full forward for four years than centre for one. And I'd rather a fully fit Didak and Johnson were given the role of senior midfielders along with Holland, with youngters around them learning the ropes, while Licuria Burns and Buckley enter the twilight years and play cameos in the middle.

I really don’t think 1, or far that matter 2, more years as a midfielder will take any time off his remaining career, if indeed he would have one anyway. The way he has handled his career, the extra miles in his legs wouldn’t matter unless his hamies are shot in which case he can’t play as a leading forward anyway. Buckley is a true professional and I think he will front up for round 1 our fittest player and still far and away our best midfielder. Furthermore I think the same will apply in 2007 and thereafter we can worry about when he calls it a day and where he plays out whatever time he has left.

Burns is another matter. Unfortunately I think the writing was really on the wall last year. He has had a much harder road both in terms of leg injuries and in the way he has used his body. I’d be much more inclined to use him as a forward option. In realty they will probably both get forward but if it were up to me Burns would be up forward much more than Buckley.

Johnston and Didak still have a lot to prove as midfielders. I actually don’t think our 2006 midfield prospects are as bad as the doomsday prophets make out but we definitely lack zip and polish and we definitely are in desperate need of quality 2005 draftees making a difference in the medium term.

Bit harsh on Holland. He had a fantastic 2005.

Yep. Don’t worry about Holland. O’Bree you can forget. I really wouldn’t have kept him on the list.

I'd rotate Buckley Burns and Lucuria through a forward line/bench/midfield rotation , and force the younger midfielders to step up and deliver the goods.

Burns yes, Buckley to a lesser extent but play it by ear. Licuria has some leg problems last year. Don;t worry about him. He's a machine. Lacks polish but he'll be as good as he's been over the last 3 or 4 years for another 3 or 4.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

Collingwood scored 1884 points in 2005, the lowest in the AFL. Collingwood’s forward line is therefore ranking 16th i.e. last. Obvious points sometimes need reiterating.

Well without Rocca all year, Fraser most of the year and Tarrant injured during the year of course we're not going to get the result. Stupid post. Ban parrot now.

 

[Nardz]

Ban parrot now.

na.. at least leave him til the season starts. his stupidity is entertaining.

 

[doog. where's my car]

I would say collingwood's forward line is ranked 13th
If you look at inside 50s converted to total score..

best 3 are dogs saints and brisy, the worst three are crows, blues and richmond.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Re: Collingwood’s forward line 2005 ranked 16th in Comp: Official AFL stat.

At least we don't have the fattest forward line in the competition.