Review PF = Sydney 95-94 Collingwood

[Countrypie]

Brilliant summary Country....watching the game from the confines of the Jindabyne Bowling club (Home of the mighty Jindi Bush Pigs) it was apparent just as you stated that early on Sydney ran out the front of the centre bounces and that Reid was the worry due to his arial strength. We settled towards the end of the first quarter but by then they'd rattled on 6 and we were chasing tail all over the place. Local AFL aficionados, "Merv and Paddy" were asking me "Why doesn't Collingwood just leave that big fella Cox in the ruck?" I had to shrug and agree because Hickey was towelling young Cameron.

I have to admit that I was asking the same thing. Cameron was really off in that 1st quarter. Once Coxy went into the ruck, the bleeding slowed somewhat.
Strangely, Cameron's 2nd half was better, but Hickey hurt us as much as anyone early

 

[JLC]

Poor decision-making but poor from Howe as well, he called for it and stood there flat-footed instead of attacking the ball once he saw it was floating.

Agree - negligence on both sides.

 

[JLC]

I usually agree with king, but on this he’s wrong. Maynard held buddy well in 1st qtr. Then out marked him at start of the second and got moved off him. He didn’t spend a half of football on buddy.


It certainly wasn’t what cost us the game. Midfielders getting poleaxed is what killed us. s**t kicks trying to switch play cost us two easy goals for the swans. In ability to lock the ball ins fwd 50 cost us.


Ultimately, buddy kicked 2.1 for 4 qtrs of footy. He got all his scoring on the siren of the 1st, 2 min and 10 mins of second qtr. If King (and you think) Buddy Franklin kicking 2.1 costs ya a one point game, you got rocks in ya head. That’s well containing him ffs.

Guess what the score was before buddy even had a scoring shot? 38 to 18. Swans had had 8 shots to 3 before Buddy even line up for goal.


To say the coaching group cost us a GF birth is beyond stupid, it’s ******* illogical and just highlights the lack of understanding of one of our key weaknesses in defensive, lack of height. Smfc exploited our lack of height brilliantly until Reid left the ground.

They poleaxed us out of the middle giving their fwds first use. It wouldn’t have matter who went on buddy, swans dominated in the midfield and would have found ried or heyward or McDonald or Heeney etc etc.

If Buddy kicked say 4 or 5 goals then sure you can say the match up was bad and the coaches had maynard on too long. But the fact is Buddy was contained by maynard in the first. As soon as he kicked his first, maynard swapped with Howe.

Darcy Moore can’t be everywhere. He can’t play on Buddy and Reid at the same time. So if swans mids got on top, they were always bound to exploit our lack of height no matter what match up we went with. They were on absolute fire up to half time . Had they kicked straight we 50plus points down, all because our mids didn’t stand up early.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The inability to lock the ball in our forward line also cost us against Geelong and for a lot of the season despite us winning. Sometimes we need to be smarter in causing a spillage as well as forcing the ball out and accept the boundary throw in. Bobby Hill and to a lesser extent McStay should help with that next season. Sometimes we look for the perfect pass whereas a mongrel punt ensuring the ball cannot be marked and hits the deck would be a more effective option.

However, I still believe Moore was the best match up for Buddy. Just like Steven May was - Moore still would have been able to play his intercept and rebound game. You have one player with over 1,000 goals in his career and that is the player that deserves the attention - not Sam Reid. Had Roughie been around then we probably win that game - hence we are into Frampton.

In terms of the ruck, Cox is the better ruckman and should have played there more in the first half. But i can also see the logic of starting him forward.

 

[ThePhantom777]

So Maynard was injured

Collingwood defender battled through prelim with “quite significant” injury

He sustained an injury the week prior.

www.sen.com.au

 

[ahkemit]

So Maynard was injured

Collingwood defender battled through prelim with “quite significant” injury

He sustained an injury the week prior.

www.sen.com.au

Even more of a bizzarre reason than to play him on Buddy.. or in fact, play him at all.

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Looney]

Even more of a bizzarre reason than to play him on Buddy.. or in fact, play him at all.

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Injured Maynard is still better than a fit Will Kelly

 

[PieBeast]

yeah Bruzzy had a shitload jabs just to get up for the game

 

[eyeroller]

I would not be surprised if Bruzzy wholeheartedly denied having any injury in order to play

 

[Pie eyed]

Anyone know why we haven't played sydney in Melbourne during the home and away season since 2013?

Ive been searching but cannot find out why? To me, this is utter crap. View attachment 1512343

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Money for the AFL.

 

[anshell]

So Maynard was injured

Collingwood defender battled through prelim with “quite significant” injury

He sustained an injury the week prior.

www.sen.com.au

I thought there was something off with Maynard from the beginning of the game,and this story proves it.He was clearly playing injured,

 

[Markfs]

I would not be surprised if Bruzzy wholeheartedly denied having any injury in order to play

if he denied it to the coach and he was injured, then we should set aside his guernsey number and give it to the biggest dickhead in every draft....

 

[ThePhantom777]

I would not be surprised if Bruzzy wholeheartedly denied having any injury in order to play

He couldn't of. Docs would have put a few needles into his groin to play.

 

[Matrix10]

I would not be surprised if Bruzzy wholeheartedly denied having any injury in order to play

So the opposite to Prestigiacomo

 

[davywap]

We where a Good Team this Season but Sadly not a Top Side

Seriously wtf?

 

[davywap]

We were actually a very ordinary side but we made up for it through sheer heart.

Wow what a load of horse shit.

 

[BuildEmUp]

Re #1. What don't you understand about the word 'stand'?
Once the umpire calls stand, you can't move sideways or backwards. If you want to take the 5, you have to do it before the umpire calls stand.

yes you ar ecorrect - Mihocek was called to stand mor ethan once and chose to ignore the umpire- not the first time he has done it ...

 

[BuildEmUp]

Money for the AFL.

and therefore the palyers and game development ( AFL is a not for profit org in case u didnt realise!)

 

[Chrispiesssss]

“A really great call”: Veteran umpire outlines Papley decision

There has been plenty of discussion.

www.sen.com.au

Isn’t this the issue? The umpire makes a bad a call on the day then we have another umpire come out and say it was good call.

 

[Countrypie]

“A really great call”: Veteran umpire outlines Papley decision

There has been plenty of discussion.

www.sen.com.au

Isn’t this the issue? The umpire makes a bad a call on the day then we have another umpire come out and say it was good call.

Even Ray says his first reaction was in the back.
After viewing it 15 times he manages to justify it

 

[gouki88]

“A really great call”: Veteran umpire outlines Papley decision

There has been plenty of discussion.

www.sen.com.au

Isn’t this the issue? The umpire makes a bad a call on the day then we have another umpire come out and say it was good call.

It's almost as if it's impossible for any consensus because our sport is riddled with stupid interpretation-based grey areas (almost the entire rulebook!) instead of cut-and-dry rules of the game. Bring back hands in the back!

 

[Countrypie]

It's almost as if it's impossible for any consensus because our sport is riddled with stupid interpretation-based grey areas (almost the entire rulebook!) instead of cut-and-dry rules of the game. Bring back hands in the back!

I don't worry too much about most decisions but the hands in the back rule does my head in.
It beggars belief that the player who takes the initiative by taking front spot is not protected.
Hawkins has made a career out of pushing people in the back and is lauded for "good use of the body" Arguably we've lost 2 prelims due to some "interpretations" of these rules. Why is it so hard to make things black and white?

 

[jonbe54]

I don't worry too much about most decisions but the hands in the back rule does my head in.
It beggars belief that the player who takes the initiative by taking front spot is not protected.
Hawkins has made a career out of pushing people in the back and is lauded for "good use of the body" Arguably we've lost 2 prelims due to some "interpretations" of these rules. Why is it so hard to make things black and white?

Nothing hard about it - what that would do though would be to take away any excuse for the umpires to be 'coached' on the day.

Frankly put 'coaching' umpires on the day leaves the field wide open to 'undue influence'.

 

[Markfs]

I don't worry too much about most decisions but the hands in the back rule does my head in.
It beggars belief that the player who takes the initiative by taking front spot is not protected.
Hawkins has made a career out of pushing people in the back and is lauded for "good use of the body" Arguably we've lost 2 prelims due to some "interpretations" of these rules. Why is it so hard to make things black and white?

well the simple answer is that there is no rule..... after watching papley, that is the only conclusion a reasonable person can make...

but there is one exception to the "no rule"....and thats when if the umpire feels inclined to give a free kick for push in the back - which is not against the rules

 

[Markfs]

I don't worry too much about most decisions but the hands in the back rule does my head in.
It beggars belief that the player who takes the initiative by taking front spot is not protected.
Hawkins has made a career out of pushing people in the back and is lauded for "good use of the body" Arguably we've lost 2 prelims due to some "interpretations" of these rules. Why is it so hard to make things black and white?

I reconsidered my previous position.......there is a rule ...but there is an exception to the rule when the umpire arbitrarily ignores the rule...

so you could say that there are two interpretations to the rule....or non-rule....it's pretty simple really..

 

[Countrypie]

I reconsidered my previous position.......there is a rule ...but there is an exception to the rule when the umpire arbitrarily ignores the rule...

so you could say that there are two interpretations to the rule....or non-rule....it's pretty simple really..

Yeah...I see that now. How silly of me not to understand.