Hurting Coach

[Damp Squarie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
I am going out now so let me make this brief....to be honest I am a prick of a man that was just baiting you.....cya all in a week.....me love you all long time......hope you all continue to hate Collingwood.....the Army loves it when you all get upset...hehehehehhehe......2003 is set to be a record year for attendance......everyone is **** scared the Pies will win the GF....its true that we think we are better than the collective lot of you....Its just a fact of life, so live with it....Just remember one thing....no matter how much you all collectively hate us....we don't give a CRAP about you....you are all just there for our amusement...and always will be.

I'll be having a good time,
Wish you all were here.

Love TioRay

Dear Moderators,
Please ban this imbecile before he hurts himself ...again

 

[Roylion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by Port01
Quite incredible given it was the only time Brisbane beat a top 4 side outside of Brisbane. (1-3 their overall result in the category).

Brisbane are a top side, but they are still not close to as good away from the gabba. 13-1 at home the last two seasons (including finals), but only 7-4 away both years (including GF's).

Close to unbeatable at home, top side but not close to immortal away.

Their Victorian record is rapidly improving though.

1997 2 wins 6 losses
1998 2 wins 7 losses
1999 4 wins 3 losses
2000 3 wins 5 losses
2001 4 wins 3 losses
2002 6 wins 1 loss.

 

[noddy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
I am going out now so let me make this brief....to be honest I am a prick of a man that was just baiting you.....cya all in a week.....me love you all long time......hope you all continue to hate Collingwood.....the Army loves it when you all get upset...hehehehehhehe......2003 is set to be a record year for attendance......everyone is **** scared the Pies will win the GF....its true that we think we are better than the collective lot of you....Its just a fact of life, so live with it....Just remember one thing....no matter how much you all collectively hate us....we don't give a CRAP about you....you are all just there for our amusement...and always will be.

I'll be having a good time,
Wish you all were here.

Love TioRay

See ya Rohan, come back soon your posts are great for a laugh,

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by go team
(that's how the greeting card would work)

One of the better posts for a while.

 

[Spidergirl~RiCkChiCk]

Stan Alves

 

[skilts]

It's just occured to me that maybe the reason Port lost their first final was because Williams was outcoached by Malthouse. IMO, that was the reason the Woods beat Brisbane in round 8. He did the same to Matthews that night.

It is also possible that Malthouse was responsible for the Woods getting so close in the GF against a team that just about everyone thought was so much superior before the game. IMO, Malthouse has devised an effective way to combat Brisbane's game plan, which depends to a large extent on total physical commitment and discipline. This is nothing new from the Pies, they even had it under Shaw. He just didn't have the cattle. In fact, one might say that these attributes have been a significant hallmark throughout the history of the Woods. He just harnessed these capacities better, and has better players.

If what I'm saying is correct, I can see no reason why Malthouse couldn't develop an equally effective plan to combat an inferior side like Port Adelaide. Maybe that's the reason Collingwood won the first final against Port? He was certainly able to steal a game plan from Alan Jeans and institute it, in spades, at the West Coast. Thankfully, the Woodsmen aren't the boring automatons the Weagles were.

I'm loathe to say this, but I would also think this would make the likelihood of The Carringbush slipping down the ladder next season quite remote. Remote, but not impossible.

 

[Destructive]

Mick Malthouse - Cause nobody likes to lose a grand final.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by skilts
If what I'm saying is correct, I can see no reason why Malthouse couldn't develop an equally effective plan to combat an inferior side like Port Adelaide. Maybe that's the reason Collingwood won the first final against Port?

How inportant would you say Primus dominating from the middle is to Port? How unlikely is it that the worst ruckman in the comp. would beat the best? The plan was not to beat him, just to make sure he was not verry effective. All credit to McKee for implimentation but the plan would have been Matlhouse's. Having that in place, the midfiled was an even battle and if there is one thing the Collingwood midfield likes, it's a battle.

Apart from that IMO the tactice were pretty much the one that worked all year. Bock accross half back and keep tight in defense but run like crap to clear the ball out. All that was added was the extra man on man pressure of finals which Port did not step up with.

Well that's pretty m,uch my simplified summation anyway. MM's tactical outpointing was no rocket science IMO but the simplest plans can be the best.

The most important factor IMO is an under rated ability level of the players as a group. They are better than generally given credit for and will have an opportunity to prove that as 2003 unfolds.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by MarkT

The most important factor IMO is an under rated ability level of the players as a group. They are better than generally given credit for and will have an opportunity to prove that as 2003 unfolds.

IMO this is deluded. The Pies were given incredible accolades all season long for what were merely creditable performances, no more. The Pies played odd patches of good footy, and pulled off an unlikely victory when it really counted against Port in a final, and made a fair fist of their other finals matches, but at the same time had a fairly mediocre season for a good part of the minor round.

The Pies did better in the very end than their generally produced performances would merit, and IMO I think we will have the opportunity to see that as 2003 unfolds.

 

[MarkT]

If I'm right you proved my point. If I'm wrong I prove yours. Only time will tell but IMO you place too much emphasis on the last 4 or 5 rounds when the work had already been done and find too many excuses for being beaten twice.

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by ok.crows

The Pies did better in the very end than their generally produced performances would merit, and IMO I think we will have the opportunity to see that as 2003 unfolds.

I think most are expecting improvement from the pies....I certainly would be satisfied with a top 4 finish before the finals....not too many expect the Crows to improve except for their supporters....if you do improve you will have to start beating teams like us, port and Brisbane....not likely with your currant list and coach...your efforts in the finals only reinforced what you had shown against those same opponents during the season.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by MarkT
If I'm right you proved my point. If I'm wrong I prove yours. Only time will tell but IMO you place too much emphasis on the last 4 or 5 rounds when the work had already been done and find too many excuses for being beaten twice.

IMO you find too many excuses for your side being less well performed by so many games compared with the sides above you. 13 wins in a season when the top side got 18 wins ... is quite a way adrift.

The Pies lost a lot of games in the minor round ... 9 losses to be precise. The Pies lost even to the wooden spoon team of 2003. Lots of poor efforts there. Very erratic.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
I think most are expecting improvement from the pies....I certainly would be satisfied with a top 4 finish before the finals....not too many expect the Crows to improve except for their supporters....if you do improve you will have to start beating teams like us, port and Brisbane....not likely with your currant list and coach...your efforts in the finals only reinforced what you had shown against those same opponents during the season.

I can see a possibility of some small improvement for Pies in 2003 ... but where you made some gains you also lost some ground.

For the Crows ... they came thrid in 2003 minor round (two games clear of your mob) ... despite having an obvious, exploitable weaknesses ... a lack of competitiveness in their forward line, lack of marking options forward, and lack of conversion of entries into forward 50 into score. Any lack to start with was exacerbated by the loss of Fitzgerald & Welsh for significant parts of the season.

Despite that weakness, the Crows came third. The Crows scored better over the minor round than the Pies did, to boot. They did that despite the Pies higher-rated forward line players, and despite the Crows lack of noted forward options.

How did the Crows do it? Simple. The rest of the Crows team was better. Far better. Much better than people think they were. They generated a hell of a lot more opportunity than the rest of the Pies team did for the Pies forwards.

Now, in 2003, the Crows forward setup looks to be far better than 2002. They arguably have addressed the deficiencies of 2002.

So the Crows probably have addressed an obvious weakness, their forward line in 2003 will be better, the rest of the side is already (proven) far better ... yet you can't see any improvement for the Crows, yet you can for the Pies?

How the heck does that work?

The Pies were relatively weaker over most of the ground (except perhaps up forward) ... and they haven't made any obvious significant improvements in any area (as much as Crows have) to speak of.

If as you claim you can point to a lot of people who expect improvement from Pies and not from Crows ... then I can point to a lot of people (actually the same group) who don't know much about what is happening in AFL footy.

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by ok.crows
The Pies were relatively weaker over most of the ground (except perhaps up forward) ... and they haven't made any obvious significant improvements in any area (as much as Crows have) to speak of.

You are living on fantasy island....the pies relied on defence and it started at our forward 50m and it screams at you from a glance at our stats.....nowonder you could not beat us....you were looking at the wrong part of the ground all along... ...really you are too much.

This is how the Army sees it....you have wasted good top picks on an old bull Carey and expect to get milk from it...Mick Martin will have a bigger impact for Carlton than Carey will for you...during the 2002 h&a rounds and the finals you could not beat anyone in the top 4...only step backwards the pies will make is the loss of ND...OP injuries to 1/4 of our players should improve....many of our guns are 21 or under so we expect the improvement due to experience to be greater than most other teams....woey in our midfield is scarey heck the whole team looks scarey...the Eddie and MM combination is all knowing and all powerful.

In short you will not be improving on your 2002 efforts but standing still or going backwards....there is no reason to think you are going to magically turn your losing streak around and start beating the top teams...but then again....anything is possible on Fantasy island.

 

[10110100]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
I certainly would be satisfied with a top 4 finish before the finals

what, not a top 4 finish after the finals?

ive saved this um 'wisdom' as a reminder in outlook & will post back here for a laugh around late 09/03.

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by 10110100
what, not a top 4 finish after the finals?

ive saved this um 'wisdom' as a reminder in outlook & will post back here for a laugh around late 09/03.

you couldn't work outlook if your life depended on it....lets be honest...you can't even remember what team you follow....heheheheh...what make you think you can work outlook?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray You are living on fantasy island....the pies relied on defence and it started at our forward 50m and it screams at you from a glance at our stats.....nowonder you could not beat us....you were looking at the wrong part of the ground all along... ...really you are too much.

I actually agree with some of your point here. The Pies defence was one area where they were stronger (than the rest of the Pies lineup). That area just happened to coincide with the Crows area of weakness, the Crows achilles heel of 2002 if you will. I agree, that would seem to be the way your relatively inferior side managed to beat the Crows twice in 2002, because your strength exploited the Crows one weak area.

This is how the Army sees it....you have wasted good top picks on an old bull Carey and expect to get milk from it...Mick Martin will have a bigger impact for Carlton than Carey will for you...during the 2002 h&a rounds and the finals you could not beat anyone in the top 4...only step backwards the pies will make is the loss of ND...OP injuries to 1/4 of our players should improve....many of our guns are 21 or under so we expect the improvement due to experience to be greater than most other teams....woey in our midfield is scarey heck the whole team looks scarey...the Eddie and MM combination is all knowing and all powerful.

This is where you go completely off the boil, however. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, or you are trolling. In order to improve in 2003 in the forward line the Crows don't require a superstar performance from Carey - all they need from him is to compete, to bring the ball to ground, and to take the odd mark himself. All the Crows need is a better showing from Carey than they got from Schell/Bienke in 2002. That shouldn't be much of an ask. No problem whatsoever that the Crows should improve in 2003 in their forward line performances. BTW, comparing Carey's likely impact at the Crows to Martin's at Carlton just shows you up for a fool, Tio_Ray.

The Pies don't look scarey at all - not strong in ruck, weak midfield (only one or two decent players in there), erratic forwards, questionable depth, perhaps only one true champion player in the whole team - a fairly decent defence however.

In short you will not be improving on your 2002 efforts but standing still or going backwards....there is no reason to think you are going to magically turn your losing streak around and start beating the top teams...but then again....anything is possible on Fantasy island.

Pfft.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by ok.crows
IMO you find too many excuses for your side being less well performed by so many games compared with the sides above you. 13 wins in a season when the top side got 18 wins ... is quite a way adrift.

The Pies lost a lot of games in the minor round ... 9 losses to be precise. The Pies lost even to the wooden spoon team of 2003. Lots of poor efforts there. Very erratic.

No, not all. We deserved to finish 4th after the H&A season, I have never said any different. We were the 4th best team over the season. What I have said is that the H&A season is but a preliminary to the finals when all bets are off and, as a generalisation, the best team usually wins. Everybody puts in equally and a combination of skill, poise and determination decide the winner. Of copurse some luck is involved and it is generally thsi aspect which leads to the speculation over merit of results. After the whole season we were second and our finals form and form against the rest of the top 8 indicate nothing but that beaing a fair result.

Now to back you up and contradict myself, 2 of our 9 losses were in the first 3 rounds before we got going and we fell away at the end. If it is making excuses to say we started slow and that losses to the 2 worst performed teams in rounds 1 and 3 were not reflective of either our ability or our season then I begrudgingly conceed that point.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by ok.crows
The Pies were relatively weaker over most of the ground (except perhaps up forward) ... and they haven't made any obvious significant improvements in any area (as much as Crows have) to speak of.

Same old arguments but when matched against each other in Melbourne or, importantly, in Adelaide, Collingwood proved Adelaide's superior overall by winning the games. They also finished higher at the end of the season - the season finishing after the finals. Therefore on face value Collingwood don't need to improve as much as Adelaide in the first place.

In any case, to say Collingwood haven't improved is a falacy. Personal wise they lost a talented but for whatever reason ineffective player from 2002 and gained a running attacking midfielder which many felt was lacking in 2002. Addittionjally, the forward line should be improved simply with the return from injury of the 2001 B&F runner up and the fitness of Fraser and Tarrant. Apart from that, a number of young players who have improved markedly over the last 3 years are still on the rise. Barring unforseen injury, Collingwood's list has real scope for natural improvement. Every club can poinmt to promising youngsters but Collingwood's actually got them to a GF and therefore have more credentials in the heat of battle than others. 2002 was not their peak but their base from which to build,unless of course it was all luck which brings us back to where we started.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by MarkT
Same old arguments but when matched against each other in Melbourne or, importantly, in Adelaide, Collingwood proved Adelaide's superior overall by winning the games. They also finished higher at the end of the season - the season finishing after the finals. Therefore on face value Collingwood don't need to improve as much as Adelaide in the first place.

In any case, to say Collingwood haven't improved is a falacy. Personal wise they lost a talented but for whatever reason ineffective player from 2002 and gained a running attacking midfielder which many felt was lacking in 2002. Addittionjally, the forward line should be improved simply with the return from injury of the 2001 B&F runner up and the fitness of Fraser and Tarrant. Apart from that, a number of young players who have improved markedly over the last 3 years are still on the rise. Barring unforseen injury, Collingwood's list has real scope for natural improvement. Every club can poinmt to promising youngsters but Collingwood's actually got them to a GF and therefore have more credentials in the heat of battle than others. 2002 was not their peak but their base from which to build,unless of course it was all luck which brings us back to where we started.

IMO Collingwoods strength in 2002 exactly matched the Crows vulnerability. Collingwood had a very good defence, Crows had a patched-up forward line.

Over the rest of the ground I think the Crows were better - but that is not good enough if you are having significant trouble scoring.

In 2002, the Crows had the third youngest list in terms of games experience. Barring unforseen injury, Adelaide's list has real scope for natural improvement - and Adelaide has also recruited far more experience and ability in trades than Collingwood has.

I did not say Collingwood had not improved at all - I said it probably hasn't made as significant improvements as the Crows have.

The Crows look to be able to eradicate their significant vulnerability of 2002. Over the rest of the ground the Crows were very good. The Pies didn't have one weak area (that could readily be improved upon) - they had one strong area (that hasn't changed) and a vague hope of small advances elsewhere.

I stand by my observation - I think it likely the Crows can improve more than Collingwood.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ok.crows
IMO Collingwoods strength in 2002 exactly matched the Crows vulnerability. Collingwood had a very good defence, Crows had a patched-up forward line.

Over the rest of the ground I think the Crows were better - but that is not good enough if you are having significant trouble scoring.

Maybe, the Crows had a slightly better midfield, however Collingwood had a bigger midfield - at least a dozen options - so it gave them flexibility if things went wrong.

Also I would say that Collingwood's forward line was not troubled by the Crows defence, as evidenced by their big second (third?) quarter at Footy Park last year.


I stand by my observation - I think it likely the Crows can improve more than Collingwood.

Wait and see - Collingwood also have tons of untapped ability.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie

Maybe, the Crows had a slightly better midfield, however Collingwood had a bigger midfield - at least a dozen options - so it gave them flexibility if things went wrong.

I dispute that contention very strongly indeed. The Crows have at least 14 or so midfiled options. 16 or so if you were to count Skipworth, Shirley and/or Nelson - which I don't.

Also I would say that Collingwood's forward line was not troubled by the Crows defence, as evidenced by their big second (third?) quarter at Footy Park last year.

That one quarter was probably the Crows weakest effort for 2002. Excedingly disappointing. The Crows can do heaps better than that effort, no worries. I doubt the Pies will be as lucky (to encounter Crows weakest efforts of the year) in 2003.

Wait and see - Collingwood also have tons of untapped ability.

Sure they do. The Pies list includes numerous promising younger players who stand to improve significantly as they gain experience. The Pies performances have steadily improved over the past three years - undoubtedly due to that very effect of younger players gaining experience.

The thing is though - what Pies fans don't seem to understand - is that the Crows can make EXACTLY the same claims - including the three consecutive years of improvement.

In addition though the Crows can point to a greater number of recognised top-class players (McLeod, Hart, Ricciuto, Goodwin, possibly Edwards & Carey as well) - versus Buckley for the Pies. Finally, as I keep pointing out but apparently which you cannot hear - the Crows may have fixed their one weak spot (a vulnerability which Pies happily exploited in 2002, probably gone in 2003), and are demonstrably stronger than (or as good as) the Pies everywhere else.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Originally posted by hotpie

I dispute that contention very strongly indeed. The Crows have at least 14 or so midfiled options. 16 or so if you were to count Skipworth, Shirley and/or Nelson - which I don't.

Maybe you dont utilise them as much because with your big name stars, you don't need to - so I concede here. Also some of them (Riccuttio etc) tend to plug gaps in the forward line.

This year of course we have picked up another gun midfielder - but unfortunately lost a quality forward.

 

[Ripper]

I've changed my mind Ioriginally thought it was chocco, but it must be MM.

He Knows he won't get a dream run like that this year.