Who is the best side in the comp on their day?

[Bardo State]

That wasn't the question.

 

[Rioli magic]

Cloke is the better fit for our gameplan. Cloke does the grunt work and brings our copious amount of flankers into our system.

Riewoldt on the other hand draws and attracts the ball

Riewoldt may very well be the best CHF in the league, but Cloke is part of the best team in the league.

Would much rather have Cloke

Reiwoldt is a fine forward and great athlete but he doesn't fit in with our game plan or philosophy.

Argue all you want but there is no way we would have won a Premiership with Riewoldt being our spearhead and captain

St. Kilda would be a much better side if Riewoldt didn't draw the ball as much as he does bc it is either his way or the highway.

LOL - Cloke > Reiwoldt.

 

[Mister Magic]

So I think Iv'e got it now.
Based on the criuteria put up by various Collingwood supporting posters we can categorically state that:-

Voss,
Black,
Lappin,
Aker,
Power
were far superior footballers than Nathan Buckley becasue they 'achieved' so much more than him during their careers.
Also Brisbane would have beem mad to exchange any of them for Buckley (at his best) becasue they all were a much 'better fit 'in their premiership teams'.

I suppose we can now categorically answer that all of the following were much better than Buckley for similar reasons
Hird
Kelly
Cousins
Judd
Kerr
Fletcher
Stenglein
Josh Carr
Misiti
Kane Cornes
McLeod
Ricciuto
and a plethora of other midfielders that played in Premiership Teams whilst Buckley was' demanding' the footy at Collingwood.

 

[PieBeast]

Feel kinda sorry for you champ, such a prolonged post but you've concentrated on the wrong criteria. Unlike Riewoldt Buckley never chocked under pressure.

 

[jonbe54]

Is that why StKilda failed to make the finals this season. Surely having Riewoldt out for 14 weeks backs up your point perfectly.

StKilda made the finals because lesser teams didn't have the defensive firepower to nullify - once you make the finals - especially the big dance that changes. The scoreboard doesn't lie your Nick didn't produce for whatever reason and his team had no real alternative - result?
They lost the big dance.
Game
Set
Match

 

[sainter35]

Relative playing merits don't apply here as other posters have said if you have a ball drawing, talented forward and he fails then your forward setup is totally f@cked yes? Collingwood use a different game plan that calls for 10 + goal kickers a game - not as spectacular but virtually impossible to shut down. Reiwoldt is a fine forward and great athlete but he doesn't fit in with our game plan or philosophy.

To suggest the games best CHF cant improve your side over a plodder cause you have a "special game plan" that he couldn't adapt to/improve is stupid and naive or Collingwood...take your pick.

We lost the flag.You guys second time round were clearly fresher/better. I'm still wrapt we have Nick Riewoldt for the sheer options re game plan he gives us over a Cloke anyday...and our game style will change....we have a far more adaptable side to cater for change/mixing it up over a Collingwood.

The Pies were best in 2010. The stars aligned with f@rk all injuries all year. We had a nightmare on injury/distractions and still drew GF 1 (and shouldve won it had it gone longer for mine...Pies were gone). Rare those stars will align again in 2011 for Pies IMO - you lose Jolly for 13 weeks and you are f@rked.

 

[Mister Magic]

Feel kinda sorry for you champ, such a prolonged post but you've concentrated on the wrong criteria. Unlike Riewoldt Buckley never chocked under pressure.

Oh you're changing the criteria now?????

So it's not that he's not good enough, it's that he's a 'chocker' (whatever that is?)
I'm assuming you actually mean 'choker'?

How did Cloke go in the 2 GF's this year? Do you reckon he outperformed Riewoldt?
If not, does that make him a bigger 'choker' than Riewoldt?
Or can Collingwood players not be classified as 'chokers' by your definition.
Maybe he can just have been beaten by the opposition, or circumstances, or sunglare, or rain or anything else other than have been deemed to have 'choked'?

BTW how did Cloke go in the PF vs Geelong and the QF vs WB?
How did Riewoldt go in the PF vs WB and the QF vs Geelong?


OKay.

So is there anybody playing in any team other than the mighty Pies that would be good enough and not a 'choker' to make your 'best team'?

Or is it purely a given in your eyes that if they're at Collingwood they're already the best possible?

If so, how do you explain Tazza who must have been the best possible when he was at Collingwood,
then he must not because you offloaded him like a stale dog-****,
and now must have become the best possible whilst playing at Freo because you've given him the 'royal nod' to return.

I gotta tell you that I'm finding it difficult stopping myself from laughing out loud when I read some of this nonsense that you guys are posting.

Seriously we're all biased towards our own Clubs and players but sometimes you have to accept the reality that some players are good, even better than what you might have.

 

[PieBeast]

To suggest the games best CHF cant improve your side over a plodder cause you have a "special game plan" that he couldn't adapt to/improve is stupid and naive or Collingwood...take your pick.

We lost the flag.You guys second time round were clearly fresher/better. I'm still wrapt we have Nick Riewoldt for the sheer options re game plan he gives us over a Cloke anyday...and our game style will change....we have a far more adaptable side to cater for change/mixing it up over a Collingwood.

The Pies were best in 2010. The stars aligned with f@rk all injuries all year. We had a nightmare on injury/distractions and still drew GF 1 (and shouldve won it had it gone longer for mine...Pies were gone). Rare those stars will align again in 2011 for Pies IMO - you lose Jolly for 13 weeks and you are f@rked.

No you don't.
Way too many plodders in your best 22, hence the reason for Lyon's one dimensional, choking game plan.

 

[sainter35]

StKilda had more rucks on their books than anybody else in the competition - King, McEvoy, Pattison, Kozi, Stanley, Blake, plus a couple of younger players. They should have been able to cover for a 31 year old with an injury history and in the twilight of his career.

The stupidity in this post could only be bettered by trash from you.

King had retired and not played since early season, Kosi/Blake arent rucks they pinch hit, Stanley is in year 2 and Pattison was clearly not up to it.
Regardless,to simply list all St Kilda's "supposed" ruck options and suggest we should have been able to cover the quality of an an ex-AA in Gardiner is just odd.

You lose Jolly for as long as we lost Riewoldt and I'll wager the Pies will struggle massively. Who you gonna call Wood FFS???....Look how well the year before you went without Jolly???. Facts are he is an enormous boost to your side and IMO was easily Norm Smith. The week earlier Gardiner kept him honest and Jolly had little impact......monstering a kid is a much easier proposition...

Your trolling is sheer stupidity.

 

[TownleyTime]

If St. Kilda had far more adaptable players then they wouldn't have recruited Lovett, Peake, Gamble and Polo. They would also be far more offensive as much as they are defensive.

 

[PieBeast]

Oh you're changing the criteria now?????

So it's not that he's not good enough, it's that he's a 'chocker' (whatever that is?)
I'm assuming you actually mean 'choker'?

How did Cloke go in the 2 GF's this year? Do you reckon he outperformed Riewoldt?
If not, does that make him a bigger 'choker' than Riewoldt?
Or can Collingwood players not be classified as 'chokers' by your definition.
Maybe he can just have been beaten by the opposition, or circumstances, or sunglare, or rain or anything else other than have been deemed to have 'choked'?

BTW how did Cloke go in the PF vs Geelong and the QF vs WB?
How did Riewoldt go in the PF vs WB and the QF vs Geelong?


OKay.

So is there anybody playing in any team other than the mighty Pies that would be good enough and not a 'choker' to make your 'best team'?

Or is it purely a given in your eyes that if they're at Collingwood they're already the best possible?

If so, how do you explain Tazza who must have been the best possible when he was at Collingwood,
then he must not because you offloaded him like a stale dog-****,
and now must have become the best possible whilst playing at Freo because you've given him the 'royal nod' to return.

I gotta tell you that I'm finding it difficult stopping myself from laughing out loud when I read some of this nonsense that you guys are posting.

Seriously we're all biased towards our own Clubs and players but sometimes you have to accept the reality that some players are good, even better than what you might have.

If you look carefully through my posts in this thread the criteria wasn't to play in the Premiership to start with. And yes Cloke definitely had better combined GF's than your fragile captain.
I'll be honest, i didn't read the rest of your post but i get the feeling you're mad about something.

 

[sainter35]

No you don't.
Way too many plodders in your best 22, hence the reason for Lyon's one dimensional, choking game plan.

How many 6"3 utility type players Pies got that can play multiple position?

That team of Saints "plodders" played you 5 times in 2010 and and won 2 drawing 1?

Don't believe everything you read in the Hun/Bigfooty.....

 

[PumpyChowdown]

Please Allah, Buddha, Jebus, Flying Spaghetti Monster - whoever you are! PLEASE LET THE FOOTY SEASON START!

 

[jonbe54]

To suggest the games best CHF cant improve your side over a plodder cause you have a "special game plan" that he couldn't adapt to/improve is stupid and naive or Collingwood...take your pick.

We lost the flag.You guys second time round were clearly fresher/better. I'm still wrapt we have Nick Riewoldt for the sheer options re game plan he gives us over a Cloke anyday...and our game style will change....we have a far more adaptable side to cater for change/mixing it up over a Collingwood.

The Pies were best in 2010. The stars aligned with f@rk all injuries all year. We had a nightmare on injury/distractions and still drew GF 1 (and shouldve won it had it gone longer for mine...Pies were gone). Rare those stars will align again in 2011 for Pies IMO - you lose Jolly for 13 weeks and you are f@rked.

If the sky falls in we are all f@rked.
Nobody listened when pies had their seasons cruelled by injuries so I'll give you the same b/s we got then - depth covers injuries - you didn't have it so you missed out.
Riewoldt CLOSES options because he draws the ball but he is still a fine player. I wouldn't PERSONALLY have any SINGLE great forward in my team for EXACTLY that reason. You become far to predictable - especially in the big waltz.

 

[sainter35]

If you look carefully through my posts in this thread the criteria wasn't to play in the Premiership to start with. And yes Cloke definitely had better combined GF's than your fragile captain.
I'll be honest, i didn't read the rest of your post but i get the feeling you're mad about something.

I get the feeling you didnt read the rest of his post cause you're avoiding the question/trying to squirm from your original argument.

If you dont understand the topic its simple - just say nothing

 

[the distributer]

The stupidity in this post could only be bettered by trash from you.

King had retired and not played since early season, Kosi/Blake arent rucks they pinch hit, Stanley is in year 2 and Pattison was clearly not up to it.
Regardless,to simply list all St Kilda's "supposed" ruck options and suggest we should have been able to cover the quality of an an ex-AA in Gardiner is just odd.

You lose Jolly for as long as we lost Riewoldt and I'll wager the Pies will struggle massively. Who you gonna call Wood FFS???....Look how well the year before you went without Jolly???. Facts are he is an enormous boost to your side and IMO was easily Norm Smith. The week earlier Gardiner kept him honest and Jolly had little impact......monstering a kid is a much easier proposition...



Your trolling is sheer stupidity.

umm, pretty sure we made the prelim last year mate (without jolly), struggle massively?, and your calling people stupid? lol.

 

[sainter35]

If the sky falls in we are all f@rked.
Nobody listened when pies had their seasons cruelled by injuries so I'll give you the same b/s we got then - depth covers injuries - you didn't have it so you missed out.
Riewoldt CLOSES options because he draws the ball but he is still a fine player. I wouldn't PERSONALLY have any SINGLE great forward in my team for EXACTLY that reason. You become far to predictable - especially in the big waltz.

How stupid is this?

Riewoldt doesnt "close"options - GAME PLAN/POOR PLAYER SELECTION does that.

Our game plan WITH Riewoldt was just fine in 09 when we smacked you all year???

Our game plan will evolve - all sides will and the Pies will see... - and we can assess whose a better option Roo or your dud Cloke after that...

Facts are - you wont get a better injury run than you did in 2010 and if you dont we'll see your "depth" then,.......I LOL at this depth....in 09 many were lauding Saints depth........let me give you the tip....when you lose quality....."depth" evaporates exceptionally fast.....

 

[sainter35]

umm, pretty sure we made the prelim last year mate (without jolly), struggle massively?, and your calling people stupid? lol.

umm...pretty sure making a Prelim aint "success" cause if thats the case.....my, the Saints are succesfull???aren't they???....have I had the pleasure of calling you stupid yet?

 

[PieBeast]

I get the feeling you didnt read the rest of his post cause you're avoiding the question/trying to squirm from your original argument.

If you dont understand the topic its simple - just say nothing

Like i said, re-read my initial post in this thread and you will see what my initial criteria was. Don't need to read the rest of your post, your tears are leaking out of my comp's screen as it is.

 

[sainter35]

Like i said, re-read my initial post in this thread and you will see what my initial criteria was. Don't need to read the rest of your post, your tears are leaking out of my comp's screen as it is.

I'm not sure if thats my tears out your computer or your choking your chicken in front of the screen again, either way, let it go (your chicken) cause your dribble about your "shifting criteria" doesnt hold water...

 

[sainter35]

If St. Kilda had far more adaptable players then they wouldn't have recruited Lovett, Peake, Gamble and Polo. They would also be far more offensive as much as they are defensive.

Stkilda played a hugely succesfull game style in 09 that Pies copied no doubt - Buckley has admitted that.

That said, all sides recruit players to fill needs - your post does nothing to suggest St Kilda are less versatile than Collingwood "small fleet".

 

[the distributer]

umm...pretty sure making a Prelim aint "success" cause if thats the case.....my, the Saints are succesfull???aren't they???....have I had the pleasure of calling you stupid yet?

struggle masively? lol.

look pie fans, here's the facts, we beat the cats 2 weeks before the finals by 4 goals, had about 12 more scoring shots and most experts said it felt like a 10 goal drubbing.

lost a dead rubber by less than a kick to the hawks, gave fraser a charity game in that one.

belted the shit out of the doggies in week one of the finals.

anililated the cats in the prelim, (side note, the saints struggled to beat the cats, in fact, they downright shouldnt have.)

drawn GF.

we win the GF replay by plenty.

but, low and behold, the draw was actually our true form according to some, maybe we just played above ourselves against the dogs and the cats and the GF replay. lol

 

[TownleyTime]

How many 6"3 utility type players Pies got that can play multiple position?

That team of Saints "plodders" played you 5 times in 2010 and and won 2 drawing 1?

Don't believe everything you read in the Hun/Bigfooty.....

Stkilda played a hugely succesfull game style in 09 that Pies copied no doubt - Buckley has admitted that.

That said, all sides recruit players to fill needs - your post does nothing to suggest St Kilda are less versatile than Collingwood "small fleet".

Collingwood actually implemented a combination of St. Kilda and Geelong's gameplan and took it to a new level. Collingwood was far more offensive than the dour St. Kilda model.

 

[Bardo State]

This thread has really given me countless laughs. This is what I have 'learned'.

1. To the pies, Cloke is a far more valuable player than Reeiwolt/buddy/Pav
2. The saints are pathetic and will be luky not to finish bottom 4.
3. The hawks are pathetic and will be lucky not to finish bottom 4 and their best cannot beat anyone.
4. Collingwood are so good that they cannot possibly lose a game unless it is a strategic plan
5. Reiwolt is so good that he is actually terrible.
6. Sidebottom is a more valuable player than Goddard.

 

[Mister Magic]

This thread has really given me countless laughs. This is what I have 'learned'.

1. To the pies, Cloke is a far more valuable player than Reeiwolt/buddy/Pav
2. The saints are pathetic and will be luky not to finish bottom 4.
3. The hawks are pathetic and will be lucky not to finish bottom 4 and their best cannot beat anyone.
4. Collingwood are so good that they cannot possibly lose a game unless it is a strategic plan
5. Reiwolt is so good that he is actually terrible.
6. Sidebottom is a more valuable player than Goddard.

Pretty much sums it up.
It has been hugely entertaining and educational for me.
Having only recently joined up on BigFooty I didn't realize what I ahd been missing all this time, cloistered away on the Saints Forum.

Surely these 'zealots' aren't really serious in the stuff they've been posting on this topic.
Surely not.