Game Day Collingwood versus Port Adelaide, Adelaide Oval, 22 July 2023, 7.40pm

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maynard stated it.
“We are top of the ladder for a reason”.
Or words to that effect.
He said - we are top of the ladder, Port will need to bring their A game.

Ken is crapping on saying we are going around saying we are the best team and he kept repeating it....he is full of S××× looking for any desperate angle.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rioili
Yes. Family thing
Dixon
Probably? The man couldnt walk without a limp. Does he have a jab if its a do or do final? Perhaps?
JHF
Maybe ? Half the Port board was screaming it was obvious he needed a break
Mckenzie
Yes
Hayes
Yes
Narkle
Yes

Nice gotchya though
Maynard stated it.
“We are top of the ladder for a reason”.
Or words to that effect.
Fken A
 
I’ve started seeing this more as a forward and not only is he reactive, but the reactions aren’t quick. If I was being super lenient I might accept that his marking droppoff has rocked his confidence and play less on instinct. The problem is I just don’t think that’s the case.
With his tools, he would have played 150+ games if he was intuitive with good game sense. He gets a bit lost. In ruck, he is good in the contest, but spends a lot of time in no man's land neither forward or back far enough. Needs to be locked into one position.
 
There also seems to be an assumption here that McStay in makes us bigger and slower but the player he’s replacing is Johnson who offered little to no pressure anyways.
Just to expand on this:

Johnson - 7 disposals, 3 goals, 3 marks, 4 score involvements, 1 tackle (1 inside 50), zero 1 percenters, 6 pressure acts.

McStay - 7 disposals, 2 goals, 4 marks, 4 score involvements, 4 tackles (3 inside 50), two 1 percenters, 16 pressure acts.

This is comparative output both offensively and defensively from last weeks game. We have equal disposals and score involvements, while AJ takes the win on individual goals scored, but McStay absolutely demolishing him defensively. And that’s his first game in from an 11 week injury.

This is the reason why he’s getting a game ahead of AJ. His direct scoreboard impact will likely never be as high as AJ is capable of, but his work off the ball creates more opportunities for us.
 
Last edited:
A complete turnaround by you is what I am reading.
No, just added context as people misunderstood. My original post is below. I've mainly clarified that I'm talking about person to person interaction in normal discussion. This is always what I meant. Compare the messages and if you think they're in conflict, let me know.

"Just because someone is offended doesn't make them right" - Ricky Gervais

Don't think I like this quote. I get what it means but there's an implication. Anyone who is offended is right to be, offence is with them and only them. The giver of offence can be blameless, it doesn't remove the offence. They will no longer be blameless if they continue to offend in the same way.

The quote seems to imply that someone can be wrong to take offence and it's ok for the offence giver to ignore that and continue. It's not.
 
Apparently this is the first time since 2017 that we have played port at AO.
2015 and 2017 have been our only games against them played there.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Yes, I was surprised to read that during the week, considering what a good record we have at AO..most of our games against PA were at AAMI Stadium years ago.
 
No, just added context as people misunderstood. My original post is below. I've mainly clarified that I'm talking about person to person interaction in normal discussion. This is always what I meant. Compare the messages and if you think they're in conflict, let me know.

"Just because someone is offended doesn't make them right" - Ricky Gervais

Don't think I like this quote. I get what it means but there's an implication. Anyone who is offended is right to be, offence is with them and only them. The giver of offence can be blameless, it doesn't remove the offence. They will no longer be blameless if they continue to offend in the same way.

The quote seems to imply that someone can be wrong to take offence and it's ok for the offence giver to ignore that and continue. It's not.
C’mon dude, it’s the game thread. Let this stuff go.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I’ll be at the Birmingham for the game. Lynden Dunn is hosting this time.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Just to expand on this:

Johnson - 7 disposals, 3 goals, 3 marks, 4 score involvements, 1 tackle (1 inside 50), zero 1 percenters, 6 pressure acts.

McStay - 7 disposals, 2 goals, 4 marks, 4 score involvements, 4 tackles (3 inside 50), two 1 percenters, 16 pressure acts.

This is comparative output both offensively and defensively from last weeks game. We have equal disposals and score involvements, while AJ takes the win on individual goals scored, but McStay absolutely demolishing him defensively. And that’s his first game in from an 11 week injury.

This is the reason why he’s getting a game ahead of AJ. His direct scoreboard impact will likely never be as high as AJ is capable of, but his work off the ball creates more opportunities for us.
Although a very small sample size, this illustrates what McStay was recruited to do.
 
This is the line people who keep being offensive will often take. Don't really think it’s true. It's the right of any person to decide what offends them. You don't have to understand it, but how you act after being told determines your character.
so it’s OK to be offended by people being offended, there’s some common ground
 
No, just added context as people misunderstood. My original post is below. I've mainly clarified that I'm talking about person to person interaction in normal discussion. This is always what I meant. Compare the messages and if you think they're in conflict, let me know.

"Just because someone is offended doesn't make them right" - Ricky Gervais

Don't think I like this quote. I get what it means but there's an implication. Anyone who is offended is right to be, offence is with them and only them. The giver of offence can be blameless, it doesn't remove the offence. They will no longer be blameless if they continue to offend in the same way.

The quote seems to imply that someone can be wrong to take offence and it's ok for the offence giver to ignore that and continue. It's not.
So you’ve made up some rules. What happens if someone dosn’t follow them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top