Collingwood should be embarrassed

[arrowman]

Yet at the same time you're conceding that you didn't see the game on TV? How do you know what we saw?

I don't know what you saw. That is why I offered two options in my post.

Apparently you are choosing option 2.

 

[arrowman]

Lol i noticed how open and sparse the collingwood forward line was. NOT.

It was pretty open when Roccas was on his own there with 5 Crows defenders.

Ah, I see - that was when the Crows were flooding. You are right, it was ridiculous of us to leave that many defenders back when the standard number is - oh, wait....

 

[ok.crows]

So, you implicitly concede (as you must, because it's a simple fact, not me getting "high and mighty") that I had a better view of the overall tactics in the game than you did.

And yet this did not stop you from saying "FFS both teams flooded as each other!"

Shrug. I will tell you, hand on heart, no flaming, no trolling, no ranting - Collingwood employed an uber flood - 15 or more players behind centre - on many occasions tonight, and Adelaide did not. That's all.

Hear hear. Well said.

My but it is hard to get a point into the Pies fans head, isn't it?

 

[MagpieWayne]

5 you reckon and the rest, anyway you flood big time and you know it.

Stop denying it.

 

[ok.crows]

It was pretty open when Roccas was on his own there with 5 Crows defenders.

Ah, I see - that was when the Crows were flooding. You are right, it was ridiculous of us to leave that many defenders back when the standard number is - oh, wait....

Back six isn't it?

Except if you are Collingwood ... who played a back 18 tonight.

 

[MagpieWayne]

Collingwood were well within their rights to stop play and call for a headcount, such was the amount of human traffic in our forward line.

I thought i was watching footage from time square on news year eve or the yearly muslim pilgramage to mecca.

Phew.

 

[dillo_09]

Back six isn't it?

Except if you are Collingwood ... who played a back 18 tonight.

....and the law against that is documented where?????

 

[Hadders]

I don't know what you saw. That is why I offered two options in my post.

Apparently you are choosing option 2.

OK because you were at the game I've got your two options. You quite simply are arrogance personified.

But that's fine. I saw enough tonight to severely doubt the Crows chances come September. Tonight's game was played in a finals like atmosphere and the Crows didn't impress. A few decisions either way and the result would have been very different.

Keep blindly thinking that your team have what it takes but when the finals come don't come whinging onto these boards that your opposition used 'ugly football tactics' to bundle you out of the finals. Your denials only make the inevitible more satisfying.

 

[Crosby87]

I think I dislike Adelaide posters more than West Coast posters now.

 

[Hadders]

I think I dislike Adelaide posters more than West Coast posters now.

Blind arrogance will do that to you.

 

[arrowman]

5 you reckon and the rest, anyway you flood big time and you know it.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are times in any game of football when a team will have more than 5 or 6 defenders at or behind half back. It tends to happen when a team is attacking (and usually when they are not moving the ball very quickly), and their opponents (the defenders, in this case, if you're having trouble following this) move with their players and/or to block up space for the lead.

You will see many occasions in tonight's game when both Adelaide and Collingwood were in this situation. This is not flooding, it is part of the normal ebb and flow of the game.

But when 17 out of the 18 players on the field move as a unit to behind centre, regardless of the position or movement of their direct opponent, this is known as flooding - or, perhaps, if you allow the more liberal definition of "flooding" to include other forms, it is sometimes distinguished as the "uber flood".

This latter is what Collingwood did tonight, and Adelaide did not.

Are you following?

FFS you can have whatever opinion of Adelaide's game plan you like, I don't care. You can even call it (a form of) flooding, if you like, I don't care.

But claiming that "[Adelaide] flood big time and you know it" is just plain stupid. And I guess you don't know it.

Stop denying it.

Will not

 

[ok.crows]

....and the law against that is documented where?????

I don't think there is a law against it. It is just the peculiar way that Collingwood fans can't seem to see their so-called "exciting team with the best forward line" doing an uber flood and having in fact no players at all in their forward line.

It can't be that good a forward line if there are no players in it, can it now?

 

[arrowman]

I think I dislike Adelaide posters more than West Coast posters now.

We just want to be like Collingwood

 

[Kickin_Goals]

OK because you were at the game I've got your two options. You quite simply are arrogance personified.

But that's fine. I saw enough tonight to severely doubt the Crows chances come September. Tonight's game was played in a finals like atmosphere and the Crows didn't impress. A few decisions either way and the result would have been very different.

Keep blindly thinking that your team have what it takes but when the finals come don't come whinging onto these boards that your opposition used 'ugly football tactics' to bundle you out of the finals. Your denials only make the inevitible more satisfying.

Adelaide weren't impressive, why is everyone being so presumptuous?
They had no decent counter for the tactics, were poor in most areas and they only scraped over the line.
People are allowed faith in their players, really that's kind of what supporting is about.

 

[Hadders]

I don't think there is a law against it. It is just the peculiar way that Collingwood fans can't seem to see their so-called "exciting team with the best forward line" doing an uber flodd and having in fact no players at all in their forward line.

It can't be that good a forward line if there are no players in it, can it now?

Not many Collingwood fans have denied that they flooded tonight.

What is ****ing most of us off is the Crows fans spinning their own tactics.

"It's not flooding it's dropping men back"

 

[ok.crows]

But when 17 out of the 18 players on the field move as a unit to behind centre, regardless of the position or movement of their direct opponent, this is known as flooding - or, perhaps, if you allow the more liberal definition of "flooding" to include other forms, it is sometimes distinguished as the "uber flood".

I lost count of the times when Adelaide had the ball and were moving it sideways back and forth across the centre amongst four or five backline players - and there was no players at all behind those four or five.

That puts 18 Collingwood players all flooding back to contest against the 13 Crows players who weren't in the centre. The Crows would be utterly stupid to kick it blindly into that uber flood of Collingwood's. So the Crows were forced to try and try again to look for a half-way decent path through those odds stacked against them.

 

[tarkyn24]

This is a club with pretensions of being in the Top 4. A club whose coach said he was coming to Adelaide to win. A club that chose not to suspend two players for a misdemeanour, because "winning is the first priority". A club whose coach said in the post matc press conference that they are a "good pressure side". A club whose supporters tells us gets to play most of its games in Melbourne because they pull big gates.

And they turned on the sort of negative, defensive, boring, loser football that we in Adelaide have only seen from bottom 8 sides previously. And then (justly) got sent home as losers.

I guess Chris Tarrant needed to stick with his buddy because he spent more time close to Ben Johnson than to Anthony Rocca. I guess the reason he was important to Collingwood was because they needed another wingman?

How must it feel, as a player, to be told that you're not good enough to play positive football against a fellow top side?

Because that's what Mick Malthouse told his players before tonight's game.


Pffffft. They are our btches. Take that, you rabble.

Since round 1 when it was the Crows pulling it of.

 

[arrowman]

OK because you were at the game I've got your two options. You quite simply are arrogance personified.

Am not! I'm really quite a modest person.

It's just that people trying to claim that Collingwood didn't flood tonight any more than Adelaide did, bring out the worst in me.

But that's fine. I saw enough tonight to severely doubt the Crows chances come September.

It didn't exactly show off Collingwood's matchwinning credentials, you know.

Tonight's game was played in a finals like atmosphere and the Crows didn't impress.

We could have been better, yes. Your mob didn;t even try to be better.

A few decisions either way and the result would have been very different.

That is true. Flooding will do that to a game. But as for "a few decisions" - if the umpiring had been more consistent I suspect you would have lost by more. (I think I'm going to regret having said that! )

Keep blindly thinking that your team have what it takes but when the finals come don't come whinging onto these boards that your opposition used 'ugly football tactics' to bundle you out of the finals. Your denials only make the inevitible more satisfying.

I don't "blindly" think anything. And if we get done over by crap football in the finals, I certainly won't be complaining, it will be our job to deal with it. Richmond played crap football against us, we didn't cope, it was our fault we lost. Hawthorn and the Kangaroos tried it, we played well, be belted them. Collingwood tried it, we were average, and we snuck across the line. We shall see.

You see, I didn't start this thread to make excuses for the fact that we were only able to beat Collingwood by 4 points. This thread, like so many others on BigFooty, is actually about Collingwood. And it's not very flattering.

 

[ok.crows]

Not many Collingwood fans have denied that they flooded tonight.

What is ****ing most of us off is the Crows fans spinning their own tactics.

"It's not flooding it's dropping men back"

At no point did the Crows have all their players back.

It wasn't Collingwood chipping it around across the centre because to kick it into the forward 50 would be kicking to an 18 on 13 contest ... it was Adelaide.

Collingwood did the uber-flood, not Adelaide. It was Adelaide who had 5 free players across the centre becase every single last Collingwood player was in Adelaide's forward 50.

Sheesh!

Don't you even watch the games?

 

[ok.crows]

Since round 1 when it was the Crows pulling it of.

For heaven's sake, at least try to understand!!!

If Adelaide are chipping it around amongst five or six free players across the centre or Adelaie's half-back line ... it is because all of Collingwood's players have flooded back and are forward of the free Adelaide players. It is because there are no Collingwood players at all in Collingwood's forward line or pressuring the ball.

This happens when Collingwood uber-flood, not when the Crows are !

FFS!

 

[arrowman]

For heaven's sake, at least try to understand!!!

If Adelaide are chipping it around amongst five or six free players across the centre or Adelaie's half-back line ... it is because all of Collingwood's players have flooded back and are forward of the free Adelaide players. It is because there are no Collingwood players at all in Collingwood's forward line or pressuring the ball.

This happens when Collingwood uber-flood, not when the Crows are !

FFS!

It's amazing, isn't it. I can almost understand it when some of the lesser football brains equate Adelaide's numbers-to-the-contest game plan (and I'm old enough to remember when "getting numbers to the contest" was generally regarded as a good thing ) with "flooding". OK, whatever.

But what's really fascinating is when people start equating the anti-flood tactic of chipping, possession football - or the "slow the game down" tactic of chipping, possession football - with "flooding". That is Olympic-standard dumb.

 

[ok.crows]

It's amazing, isn't it. I can almost understand it when some of the lesser football brains equate Adelaide's numbers-to-the-contest game plan (and I'm old enough to remember when "getting numbers to the contest" was generally regarded as a good thing ) with "flooding". OK, whatever.

But what's really fascinating is when people start equating the anti-flood tactic of chipping, possession football - or the "slow the game down" tactic of chipping, possession football - with "flooding". That is Olympic-standard dumb.

I'm thinking some of these Pies fans posting on this thread have got the Olympic standard that you mention well and truly beat.

 

[arrowman]

Well, as I said earlier - I'm not a Collingwood player so I really should be in bed. But I'd like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

I was a bit angry when I started this thread - angry because I had just wasted 1/11 of my season ticket, and 3 hours of my life, watching a very average game of football that could have been so much more if Collingwood had come to play.

But since then I have been entertained, and cheered up enormously, by the various contributors who have tried in so many interesting ways to claim that Adelaide flooded just as much as Collingwood tonight, beginning with (and typified by) such outstanding football brains as:

Both team played the same way - identical in fact!!

Indeed, ollie, indeed. Identical.

As has been noted above, some of this could be excused by the fact that the analysts in question could only watch the game on TV. But what could not be excused, and was even more entertaining, was the school of thought (and I use that term very, very loosely) that Adelaide's possession tactic, as used against Collingwood in Round 1, was in fact "flooding" - and that when Adelaide were chipping the ball around tonight, trying to find an avenue through the Collingwood flood, this was in fact evidence that Adelaide themselves were flooding.

That analysis was an absolute gem and I'd like to thank those of you who ran that line for absolutely making my night.

I was accused as one stage of being "arrogant". Perhaps, who knows. For me it's just nice to see that while I might not be the most powerful football brain on the planet, there are many worse off than me.

I'd also like to make special mention of Jimmy The Gent - an island of sanity in a sea of dumb. Thanks, Jimmy. And thanks also to ok.crows.

'Night, all.

 

[Brad Goodman]

West Coast would have blown us out of the water tonight.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

West Coast would have blown us out of the water tonight.

Yes they would have, adelaide are still stupid.