News Collingwood News & Media

[NMBB]

Yes, Dunnings. Now the site of the Harp carpark and Stephen Silvagni's coffee shop.

East Kew used to be a bit of a mini Cwood pocket - upwardly mobile people had moved up the Studley Park hill - couldn't afford Kew proper so settled for East Kew - it's a well located spot

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[sr36]

What does a footy boss do? What part of their role requires them to know much about football?

They don’t have to do anything on the field - we have players to do that.

They don’t have to teach skills - we have assistants to do that.

They don’t have to come up with game plans - we have a senior coach that does that.

They don’t have to do player recruitment - we have a draft and list management team that does that.

The footy boss is an executive role, a strategic role. Their job is big picture. What is the vision / mission? Do the staff understand and have buy-in to the vision / mission? Yeah of course it’s to win games of footy and Premierships, but that’s no different to the other 17 teams and that’s the ‘what’. There’ll be a strategic element of the ‘how’ to go with it (eg: “Side by side”)

This is very normal in industry (eg: when Holgate went to Australia Post what did she know about delivering the mail given she’d come from a vitamins company?)

Advantages of recruiting from outside of the AFL …

• Wider selection pool
• Possibility of attracting quality people who come from an industry that doesn’t pay as well as the AFL
• Probably lower risk of them being a micro manager
• Cross pollination of ideas from other disciplines. If you have a candidate who has achieved huge success by running an innovation program, why wouldn’t you want that person at your footy club?

Personally, I struggle to see why it's even a necessary role. Why can't Head Coach, List manager, Fitness boss and Recruiting boss answer directly to the CEO? With non-footy extras shifted outside of the footy department and footy department tax.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Personally, I struggle to see why it's even a necessary role. Why can't Head Coach, List manager, Fitness boss and Recruiting boss answer directly to the CEO? With non-footy extras shifted outside of the footy department and footy department tax.

Can see how easy it would be for disagreements to arise & competing ego's to flare with so many head honcho's.

 

[sr36]

Can see how easy it would be for disagreements to arise & competing ego's to flare with so many head honcho's.

Agree, but does an extra person sitting above solve that?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Agree, but does an extra person sitting above solve that?

Guess it depends on who that person is..

 

[35Daicos]

We see this artefact in modern AFL by the umpire signaling in the opposite direction for a free kick to what they would do in all other sports. I’ve always wondered about the origins of this? ( 35Daicos , you wouldn’t happen to know?)

I've never known why they do that in our game, but have always been curious! I also don't know when it started - perhaps it's always been that way?!

This chap was a boundary umpire in the AFL (and WAFL) for quite a few years, and gave this answer to the question some time back:

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Fly’s horse just came a half-head second in the Caulfield Guineas! Hell of a run.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Spot the Magpies

 

[JuniorB]

Spot the Magpies

View attachment 2139345

Must be wishing he never left.

 

[manicmagpie]

(2) It shows that one of the more bizarre peculiarities of AFL football has been around for a while. In every other sport on the planet, the “goal” is considered a teams attacking objective. AFL is different, the “goal” is what a team defends. Here we see Collingwood’s most prolific goal scorer lining up in front of “GEELONG GOAL”

In my experience you’ve got this completely the wrong way around.

In soccer the goal is definitely described as belonging to the defensive team, as is the territory (“Manchester United haven’t been able to get the ball out of their own half” for example would be describing United having to defend constantly).

Similarly in the NFL all the measurements use the defensive team (i.e. the ball being on Green Bay’s 20 would mean it is 20 yards from their defensive end zone). Same goes for the different forms of rugby as well. In all cases this no doubt arises from having offside rules which mean that each team lines up on ‘their’ side of the field.

In the AFL by the look of that old record we used to do the same, but nowadays if a commentator says the ball hasn’t left Collingwood’s half or it’s at the Collingwood end they would certainly be describing the attacking side.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Must be wishing he never left.

I think it's his buck's night. His fiance is having her hen's night tonight too.

 

[76woodenspooners]

In my experience you’ve got this completely the wrong way around.

In soccer the goal is definitely described as belonging to the defensive team, as is the territory (“Manchester United haven’t been able to get the ball out of their own half” for example would be describing United having to defend constantly).

Similarly in the NFL all the measurements use the defensive team (i.e. the ball being on Green Bay’s 20 would mean it is 20 yards from their defensive end zone). Same goes for the different forms of rugby as well. In all cases this no doubt arises from having offside rules which mean that each team lines up on ‘their’ side of the field.

In the AFL by the look of that old record we used to do the same, but nowadays if a commentator says the ball hasn’t left Collingwood’s half or it’s at the Collingwood end they would certainly be describing the attacking side.

If my objective is to drive from my home to the MCG …

… my goal is the MCG, but that doesn’t preclude my home still belonging to me. I’m travelling toward my goal.

So whilst MU may have the ball stuck in “their half”, MU’s goal is still at the other end of the pitch. They’re kicking toward their goal.

That old footy record shows that “Collingwood goal” is the end that they’re defending. And, as you say “Collingwood’s half” refers to Collingwood’s attacking 50. It’s all ass about face compared with soccer.

The modern rules of the game don’t seem to refer to a team’s goal (maybe they studiously avoid it to avoid confusion). Eg: they describe the toss of the coin as the captain pointing in the direction their team attacks in the first quarter.

 

[sideswipe]

A couple of observations about this …

(1) That looks like that’s been hand typed.

A woman (those were very different times) would have sat down at her typewriter with a ream of “Joseph Rogers and Sons” paper on one side, a paper stand in her line of vision with a sheet of paper with her boss’s barely coherent scrawl listing the names, and an outbox on the other. The first 10 or so would have been slow going because names are a bit fiddly, but then she would have gotten into a good rhythm and churned one out every few minutes. If she made any mistakes she would have simply rolled the paper out, discarded it, and started again. But she didn’t make mistakes because that “Joseph Rogers and Sons” paper isn’t cheap and you don’t churn these out by making mistakes.

(2) It shows that one of the more bizarre peculiarities of AFL football has been around for a while. In every other sport on the planet, the “goal” is considered a teams attacking objective. AFL is different, the “goal” is what a team defends. Here we see Collingwood’s most prolific goal scorer lining up in front of “GEELONG GOAL”

We see this artefact in modern AFL by the umpire signaling in the opposite direction for a free kick to what they would do in all other sports. I’ve always wondered about the origins of this? ( 35Daicos , you wouldn’t happen to know?)

Your point 1 might be correct, if it wasn’t for a certain 15th century invention known as the printing press.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[NMBB]

The Footy Record for this day in 1930, the day we won our fourth flag in a row.
View attachment 2138600

Record from 1958 - I went to the game (yes I'm chronologically advanced). This Record was given to me years later by a Melbourne supporter (who I think had given up on them during one of their frequent dark periods).

There was a "to do" with the players' numbers and breach of copyright.... boring..

That must be the reason there's 2 sets of player lists with different numbers in the "centrefold".





Not sure why Frank Tuck is listed on the right for us - he was injured that day. Maybe respect for him as captain?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Your point 1 might be correct, if it wasn’t for a certain 15th century invention known as the printing press.

Yeah, I did consider that - I just thought that there was a bit of variation between the type pressure across the page (eg: instances of “1” character) which you don’t really get from a printing press.

 

[Antz]

A big congrats to Brody and his partner.

 

[sideswipe]

Yeah, I did consider that - I just thought that there was a bit of variation between the type pressure across the page (eg: instances of “1” character) which you don’t really get from a printing press.

Typesetting? It definitely wasn’t a bank of typists producing the same document over and over.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[76woodenspooners]

Typesetting? It definitely wasn’t a bank of typists producing the same document over and over.

Maybe there wasn’t much else for the typing pool to do on a Friday afternoon when Mr Rodgers went out for his weekly manicure, followed by the rollocking business lunch and a visit to the mistress?

 

[sr36]

If my objective is to drive from my home to the MCG …

… my goal is the MCG, but that doesn’t preclude my home still belonging to me. I’m travelling toward my goal.

So whilst MU may have the ball stuck in “their half”, MU’s goal is still at the other end of the pitch. They’re kicking toward their goal.

What you're saying makes sense, but it's not how it's described - you defend your goal in soccer.

 

[gerryg400]

What you're saying makes sense, but it's not how it's described - you defend your goal in soccer.

Exactamundo. (to borrow one of your favourite sayings). That’s how the ‘own goal’ got its name.

 

[35Daicos]

Record from 1958 - I went to the game (yes I'm chronologically advanced). This Record was given to me years later by a Melbourne supporter (who I think had given up on them during one of their frequent dark periods).

There was a "to do" with the players' numbers and breach of copyright.... boring..

That must be the reason there's 2 sets of player lists with different numbers in the "centrefold".

View attachment 2139644

View attachment 2139645

Not sure why Frank Tuck is listed on the right for us - he was injured that day. Maybe respect for him as captain?

Yes, they give this explanation on page 3:



I posted this on the topic quite a few years back:

 

[NMBB]

Yes, they give this explanation on page 3:
View attachment 2139885
View attachment 2139890

I posted this on the topic quite a few years back:
View attachment 2139913

Do you know why Frank Tuck was listed in the smaller list - when he did not appear in the team positions immediately below?

 

[35Daicos]

Do you know why Frank Tuck was listed in the smaller list - when he did not appear in the team positions immediately below?

No, and I agree with you it's a bit strange that they bothered putting his name on that list (captain or not).

Edit: Even though he hadn't played for quite a while, it seems Tuck was still in with a chance of playing up until quite late in the week, and perhaps that's why they included him on the list?:





Poor Frank certainly was a hard luck story!