Collingwood should be embarrassed

[pies75]

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.

All that after a lucky four point win? That's a mighty huge chip on your shoulder there mate.

 

[arrowman]

1. Firstly in regards to the Taz/Johno incident - say the Crows play a Preliminary Final on the Friday night and they win. Hentschel and Goodwin are involved an altercation in Hindley St early on Sunday morning - If you were Craig - WHAT WOULD YOU DO??????

I never said that Tarrant and Johnson should have been suspended, I actually agree they shouldn't have been. What I thought was funny was the reasoning given, that winning the game was so important, and then they come over with a game plan designed to deny Tarrant any opportunity to contribute to a win.

 

[arrowman]

Of course they flood. But according to Crows supporters they don't flood "they drop men back"

Amazing how you can try and spin something to fit your own argument.

You just go right on thinking that dropping 15 or 16 men back is "using Adelaide's own tactics against them". That'll suit us just fine, thanks.

 

[jimmy35]

Welcome to finals footy.

 

[crackers57]

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.

Perhaps MM thought that his best chance of winning the game was to employ these tactics............just a thought

 

[arrowman]

Welcome to finals footy.

I think you'll find there are very few footy pundits who believe that flooding is a winning tactic in finals.

 

[arrowman]

Perhaps MM thought that his best chance of winning the game was to employ these tactics............just a thought

That was pretty much the point of my post (lost though it might have been in the rant, I admit ). That it's pretty sad when a supposed top 4 team pulls out the sort of tactics that we've previously only seen from bottom 8 sides. And pretty angry-making when you turn up looking forward to what should be a cracker of a game, and then see that tripe served up.

 

[crackers57]

Um, that was pretty much the point of my post (lost though it might have been in the rant, I admit ). That it's pretty sad when a supposed top 4 team pulls out the sort of tactics that we've previously only seen from bottom 8 sides.

You mean the sort of tactics Sydney were criticised for last year? Apparently would never win them a flag.

Anyway, I think you'll find Collingwood pretty much change their tactics for the situation.............perhaps it will be different next time.

 

[jimmy35]

I think you'll find there are very few footy pundits who believe that flooding is a winning tactic in finals.

Seemed to have got the Swans the flag . Even your coach thought it was a good introduction to finals footy .

But then , what would he know?

 

[arrowman]

Seemed to have got the Swans the flag . Even your coach thought it was a good introduction to finals footy .

But then , what would he know?

(And to crackers, too)

Ah, Sydney - as misunderstood as Adelaide when it comes to "flooding"

I don't deny that some of what Collingwood did on Saturday night was good "finals footy". And some of it was uber flood. Anyway, thanks for the warmup

Speaking of which - in the next 4 weeks we play 3 (currently) top 8 sides and a Showdown, including a game at the MCG. We don't have to travel to Perth in round 22, like last year. We can afford to try a few things and bring in a few players (eg Welsh), we can afford to drop a couple of games and still finish top 2.

Collingwood play 4 bottom 8 sides. But you have to keep winning, and some of those sides could take it up to you, so the intensity will still need to be there.

Who has the better preparation for the finals? Not a troll, a serious question.

 

[jimmy35]

(And to crackers, too)

Ah, Sydney - as misunderstood as Adelaide when it comes to "flooding"

I don't deny that some of what Collingwood did on Saturday night was good "finals footy". And some of it was uber flood. Anyway, thanks for the warmup

Speaking of which - in the next 4 weeks we play 3 (currently) top 8 sides and a Showdown, including a game at the MCG. We don't have to travel to Perth in round 22, like last year. We can afford to try a few things and bring in a few players (eg Welsh), we can afford to drop a couple of games and still finish top 2.

Collingwood play 4 bottom 8 sides. But you have to keep winning, and some of those sides could take it up to you, so the intensity will still need to be there.

Who has the better preparation for the finals? Not a troll, a serious question.

Not sure there is a definitive answer , Depends how your finals campaign goes in regards to the success of your preparation I'd suggest.
About this time last year I had Adelaide pegged as the premiers , they looked a cut above the rest for mine .
The only way I thought they would miss out was if they fell over .

 

[arrowman]

Not sure there is a definitive answer , Depends how your finals campaign goes in regards to the success of your preparation I'd suggest.

Hindsight, you mean? No-one ever uses that in football analysis

But you're probably right, there is no definitive answer. Collingwood's "must keep winning" preparation is probably just as valuable as Adelaide's "playing top 8 sides".

About this time last year I had Adelaide pegged as the premiers , they looked a cut above the rest for mine .
The only way I thought they would miss out was if they fell over .

And you were right I don't think we're "a cut above" as much as we were last year, West Coast in particular must be at least as favoured as us. But at least this year we don't have to go to Perth in R22 (not offering excuses for last year, but hey, I don't think there's anyone who would volunteer for that gig in R22). Bring it on, eh?

 

[crackers57]

Hindsight, you mean? No-one ever uses that in football analysis

But you're probably right, there is no definitive answer. Collingwood's "must keep winning" preparation is probably just as valuable as Adelaide's "playing top 8 sides".
And you were right I don't think we're "a cut above" as much as we were last year, West Coast in particular must be at least as favoured as us. But at least this year we don't have to go to Perth in R22 (not offering excuses for last year, but hey, I don't think there's anyone who would volunteer for that gig in R22). Bring it on, eh?

I just think that every coach must just prepare as they see fit then cast their die............

 

[Murray]

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.

Ramsgate Hotel

 

[fryingpan]

Of course they flood. But according to Crows supporters they don't flood "they drop men back"

Amazing how you can try and spin something to fit your own argument.

dear dipsht,

you flooded much worse than the crows on the weekend. it's a part of todays game so live with it, you critisize one team for flooding then your team does it and nothing is said! hypocritical

 

[fryingpan]

Ramsgate Hotel

collingwood = crows b*tches.

 

[crackers57]

dear dipsht,

you flooded much worse than the crows on the weekend. it's a part of todays game so live with it, you critisize one team for flooding then your team does it and nothing is said! hypocritical

Ah, stupid, the thread was started by an Adelaide supporter....

 

[fryingpan]

Ah, stupid, the thread was started by an Adelaide supporter....

whats your point? the creator of the thread has nothing to do with my comment

he critisizes a team for flooding yet his team do it and nothing is said.

couldn't get a more accurate definition of hypocrisy.

 

[crackers57]

whats your point? the creator of the thread has nothing to do with my comment

he critisizes a team for flooding yet his team do it and nothing is said.

couldn't get a more accurate definition of hypocrisy.

Nah, see this is how it works.........

Arrowman has a go at Collingwood about flooding.

Who ever it was comes back and says don't whinge about Collingwood doing it when Adelaide do it too (whether they do or not is debatable)

You can't then comeback and say don't whinge about Adelaide flooding when Collingwood do it too because then it just go around and around and around in a circle.

See what I mean?

 

[fryingpan]

Nah, see this is how it works.........

Arrowman has a go at Collingwood about flooding.

Who ever it was comes back and says don't whinge about Collingwood doing it when Adelaide do it too (whether they do or not is debatable)

You can't then comeback and say don't whinge about Adelaide flooding when Collingwood do it too because then it just go around and around and around in a circle.

See what I mean?

but collingwood's style of play was boring and disgraceful

i expect that from bottom 8 sides, like when the roos played that crap against us but not from a potential top 4 side.

adelaide OWNS collingwood

 

[crackers57]

but collingwood's style of play was boring and disgraceful

i expect that from bottom 8 sides, like when the roos played that crap against us but not from a potential top 4 side.

adelaide OWNS collingwood

And the ring a ring a rosy style that you often play isn't........as I said before giving it a pretty name desn't make it look any better.

 

[Fred Phillis]

And the ring a ring a rosy style that you often play isn't........as I said before giving it a pretty name desn't make it look any better.

anyone believing neil craig showed his true hand on satdy night is kidding themselves.
too smart for that, when there cld be a rematch in a month...

 

[crackers57]

anyone believing neil craig showed his true hand on satdy night is kidding themselves.
too smart for that, when there cld be a rematch in a month...

Ok then Fred, you believe that................

 

[Fred Phillis]

Ok then Fred, you believe that................

i will...have seen it done before (namely blight with the crows, late home and away rounds, 1998 v kangaroos, AAMI...we lost and blight barely made a move...)

 

[Hadders]

dear dipsht,

you flooded much worse than the crows on the weekend. it's a part of todays game so live with it, you critisize one team for flooding then your team does it and nothing is said! hypocritical

so you're admitting that the crows flood?

where did I ever say that collingwood didn't flood? Nowhere. The thing that ****es me off is Adelaide supporters who get all high and mighty and claim that their team plays attractive footy because they don't flood "they drop men back". So before you call someone a hypocrite look it up in the dictionary or even better ask one of your fellow crows fans, they know all about it.