Why we lost today.

[krisholio14]

Not being critical but do you think the Collingwood side tolerates losing as well?

There is no such thing as being better off losing a grand final.

At least I hope this makes some of the boys a bit hungrier.

That was the consensus after round 24.

Your coach and several players are on the record as saying you basically gave up after half time.

That anything was said at all, to me, was an admission that you guys didn't have a lot left in the tank.

Anyway, you'll clear out a bit of dead wood, you'll get a fresh coach who I think is going to bring an exciting brand of footy with him, and you'll have a better idea about how you need to spread the workload over the season.

This loss is going to burn in the guts of everyone at the footy club for the next 12 months, and taking all these things into consideration, I think you'll win it in 2012.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Massively out coached. So massively.

Combined with playing injured players, you're just playing with fire.

Midfield was destroyed also.

 

[Vass38]

I reckon a number of reasons - but the main reason I think is its extremely hard to stay up for so long as the Pies have in 2010 and 2011. I see a lot of similarities with the Pies in 2011 to the Dons in 2001. Both so dominant all year and in previous seasons and its hard to maintain that. Both teams started so show signs of unravelling towards the end of the seasons and didnt perform well in finals.
There are similarities with some of the players also, and I find Alan Didaks slump in form in 2011 earily similar to Mark Mercuri in 2001, both champion players who went off the boil and were never the same. I think the Pies in 2012 may be similar to the Bombers of 2002 also. Youve got enough class to be contenders again with the likes of Cloke, Swan & Pendles - we had Hird, Lloyd & J.Johnson in 2002 and finished 5th and maybe Collingwood is destined to do simlar in 2012....good luck for 2012 and congratz ona pretty good season though in 2011.

 

[TheLip]

Pretty straight forward as has been said here already. Too many players went in underdone or carrying injuries. Add to that the injuries during the match and we didn't stand a chance of getting over the Cats. Jolly, Reid, Shaw, Thomas, Ball, Didak, Maxwell and a few others all well short of their best due to injury/suspension. Not much you can do about stuff like that. Cats copped a few but most of their players were better prepared and few have missed long stints like ours.

That said, it was still a great game up until 3/4 time and I reckon our boys did damned well to be so close at the last break. Thought of a few changes we could have tried like Cloke into the midfield and Tarrant onto Hawkins but in the end I think you'd just have been robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Would have lost anyway but Goldasack should have played. Probably Wood, too. I would not have selected Fasolo and would probably had Blair or Didak as the sub.

The old saying was you dont flirt with form but we went in to the game with too many players either without form or without fitness to play up to their recent form levels.

 

[upnsmoke]

I do agree moving Tarrant away from Hawkins was a coaching error, especially since Tarrant was doing an EXCELLENT job earlier.

When Scott pushed Bartel forward, a smaller defender should of been on him, Leon Davis or Shaw.

 

[brazilblue]

Simply put Eddie and Buckley cost you guys a flag. I have always considered you a championship team rather than a team of champions. MM got the absolute best out of the playing group ... TBH I was scratching my head with amazement the last two years at how good you were. It truly is amazing what your group did and you should all be extremely proud of your boys.

I think that after MM went on the footy show the cracks appeared and got deeper until by 6 weeks left in the season you were never going to pull it back. I am not saying I knew it at the time but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the end the MM-Buckley saga created a pro MM pro Bucks division within the playing group and focus was lost. It pains me to say it but when you guys were on song with no distractions you were simply awe inspiring, that was not evident the last 6 weeks and I think in the end, subconsciously, Mick's heart was not in it. It was not a conscious effort that is for sure but I thought his coaching dropped way off towards the end.

The next couple of years will be very interesting for you guys, personally, and I know I am in the minority on this board, but I think Buckley will have a very tough time getting anywhere near the same commitment out of the playing group that MM did .... Scott he is not.

I'd say good luck but I am a Blues supporter on your board and I am sure you all appreciate straight, respectful talk rather than complete BS.

I will say this I have a smidgen of sympathy for you guys as your loss reminded me of our 93 loss to those dickwads the baby bombers grrrr!

 

[Zahki]

Simply put Eddie and Buckley cost you guys a flag.

No, just no. The succession plan was the right thing to do at the time, in 2009 when Mick had been at the helm for 9 years and Collingwood was looking like we'd have trouble getting into the finals. If Mick couldn't handle it then he should've just quit in 2009 and saved everyone some trouble. The club didn't trick him into it, it was all laid out in front of him, if he couldn't handle the situation the fault lies with Mick Malthouse, no-one else.

 

[PremiumPies]

No, just no. The succession plan was the right thing to do at the time, in 2009 when Mick had been at the helm for 9 years and Collingwood was looking like we'd have trouble getting into the finals. If Mick couldn't handle it then he should've just quit in 2009 and saved everyone some trouble. The club didn't trick him into it, it was all laid out in front of him, if he couldn't handle the situation the fault lies with Mick Malthouse, no-one else.

^^^ This. Completely and totally agree with you, Zahki.

 

[Snoop Dog]

Mate with all due respect thats crap. If I blame anyone I blame MM.

To understand that you have to go back 2 years. At that point he had 10 years with the group, lost 2 GF's as well as a number of Semi / Prelims, had refused to get a big bodied ruckmen which was so glaringly obvious (he had made do with blokes like Fraser, McKee and Richards as his #1 ruck). To be fair he had his chances and he didnt get us across the line. Buckley comes onto the scene at a time when young coaches are making their mark and the club is faced with a decision. IMO They made the right one.

Mick then won us a flag, after we finally get a big bodied ruck and inside mid and the gameplan was tweaked. A game plan Buckley assited immensely with.

IMO Mick was bloody lucky to get another 2 years and should be bloody grateful for them and thats why I think his childish behaviour on TFS was the start of the end. He made it the circus it became and as far as I am concerned its thank you and goodnight Mick!

 

[Jedi01]

Simply put Eddie and Buckley cost you guys a flag. I have always considered you a championship team rather than a team of champions. MM got the absolute best out of the playing group ... TBH I was scratching my head with amazement the last two years at how good you were.......

Stop reading this crap here. Is it suddenly 2002 again?

6 All-Australian players and a Brownlow medalist and yet the misconception is we still have a team of plodders.

We lost because we got smashed all day around the stoppages. Add to that a blinding 20min form Hawkins.

 

[brazilblue]

No, just no. The succession plan was the right thing to do at the time, in 2009 when Mick had been at the helm for 9 years and Collingwood was looking like we'd have trouble getting into the finals. If Mick couldn't handle it then he should've just quit in 2009 and saved everyone some trouble. The club didn't trick him into it, it was all laid out in front of him, if he couldn't handle the situation the fault lies with Mick Malthouse, no-one else.

Actually, if you go back to the foot show interview Mick said something that stuck with me at the time ... he said that his state of mind was not 100% due to the loss of his mother and that is why he agreed with it. I thought that spoke volumes.

Personally I do not think the succession plan was a bad idea at the time. It was forward thinking and revolutionary ... the cards just fell the wrong way if you will.

BUT ....

The problem with the plan ... and hindsight is a wonderful thing ... was that you were dealing with 2 very strong personalities. When they signed I am sure each man had their idea about how things would go ... they went Buckley's way and left Mick thinking what am I exactly going to be doing? I want to protect my legacy and I want something meaty not put out to pasture with plenty of green.

Your club could not give Mick a role he would have ever been happy with while still keeping Buckley content. It created division, two separate camps and in my view took your focus away from what was important, THE FLAG.

I honestly think it affected the playing group, who, and we all know this would have taken a bullet for Mick.

Just do not think Buckley will get that commitment from the group ... and that was your biggest strength.

 

[4#Didak#4]

There is a number of reasons why we lost. I don't think it had much to do with the coaching situation.

Our bottom 5-10 players did not perform the way they were last year. This has been a problem all year. Our best players have gotten better and compensated for this. However, it was eventually going to be exposed against a good team. Geelong's bottom 5-10 players were far better than ours.

We did not have the depth we had last year, so there was less pressure on them and less chance someone could push up and make a difference to the team.

I also thought we lost it on the half forward line. Our half forward line was not functional and has not been for some time. Once our half forward line was a major strength. We need that smaller lead up marking option that opens up space for Dawes & Cloke. Last year this was Macaffer and Davis, before them Lockyer & Medhurst. This year there was no one who executed this role well or consistently. Macaffer has left a big hole IMO.

In comparison Geelong's half forward line was super dangerous with Johnson, Varcoe, Chapman, Stokes and then Bartel stepping up. All capable marks on a lead and very creative going forward which opens everything up for Pods & Hawkins.

We have been relying on our midfield going more direct to Cloke & Dawes & relying on our crumbers like Krakouer. This works & Cloke has been super, but it becomes very predictable, especially if we are not winning the clearances.

 

[brazilblue]

Stop reading this crap here. Is it suddenly 2002 again?

6 All-Australian players and a Brownlow medalist and yet the misconception is we still have a team of plodders.

We lost because we got smashed all day around the stoppages. Add to that a blinding 20min form Hawkins.

Yeah, look I apologise for that ... it does sound way too close to 2002 for my liking as well.

Mick's legacy in the end will be that he got the absolute best out of the playing group and I see nothing wrong with that.

I think a championship team will always be remembered more fondly than a team of champions simply because its what sport is really all about. Getting the best out of yourself.

I hate Collingwood but I have enough manners to be respectful on your board. If I have crossed the line I do apologise.

 

[Zahki]

I honestly think it affected the playing group, who, and we all know this would have taken a bullet for Mick.

Now if that actually translated into premierships Mick would still have his job. 1 in 12 years. Call me if Ratten still has his job after 9 years without a flag.

I'm happy with Buckley moving forward, the club needs a fresh start.

 

[Didak Wine]

macaffer was a big loss this year. He never falls over, is a doer, he can chase, he can mark in contests, and he offers a real target at chf and along the flanks. A fit and firing macaffer will improve us no doubt.

Why didnt reid just say I'm shot, and why didnt maxy chop him out in front of hawkins.

When pods went off, a tall defender had to go forward and give us another marking forward so we could consolidate and increase our lead.

As pendles wrote in his article, we lost because their hard bodies were unstoppable. He said they (cats) wanted us to tackle em so they could break our tackles.

 

[brazilblue]

In the modern era, with 16 clubs three grand finals, a number of prelims as well as completing a rebuild all in 12 years is impressive in my books.

I mean look at Eade ... I personally think he was the failure and your club should stay well clear of him!

I know where you are coming from and believe it or not I do not want Mick at my club (only because it would be a bad move now as the window is open and stability is the key ... also playing group loves Ratts) but I think he can be proud of his record and what he did for Collingwood.

 

[Shenthus]

Not trolling here guys, great game
McGuire said on radio this morning that Maxwell broke his knuckle in the first quarter. That certainly didn't help you at all and might explain why he was so quiet for the game.

I think the difference in fitness got to you and you had too many guys out of form as well.

I look forward to our meetings in 2012.

 

[lowbo]

Great game on the weekend. The margin didn't reflect how close the game actually was. I didnt think it was in the bag until the 29th minute.

I personally think you guys started a 100m race from the 120m line. The Cats pain from 08 and 10 taught us the effects of underdone players & an unhappy/bitter senior coach, so the challenge from Pies this year is a real testament to your team.

Your midfield is young and dominant. I have no doubt you guys will be playing off in GFs for a few years to come.

 

[deck]

There is a number of reasons why we lost. I don't think it had much to do with the coaching situation.

Our bottom 5-10 players did not perform the way they were last year. This has been a problem all year. Our best players have gotten better and compensated for this. However, it was eventually going to be exposed against a good team. Geelong's bottom 5-10 players were far better than ours.

Cloke, Swan, Pendles, Thomas, Tarrant, Reid and Davis were the only players we got consistence out of. To many others put in to many average performances. Last year we had nearly all our players up and doing there job plus some. We just didn't have that this year and we were left hoping the lesser likes were about to have a great game not expecting.

 

[daics cousin]

Listen everyone is blaming injuries,i didn't see it that way.

Pods went down, ling got smashed in the face geelong had their worries to me a great coach reacts straight away.

Malthouse doesn't andf didn't.In grand finals everyone is not 100%

In the second quarter we had Geelong on the ropes.
Our mistake was allowing them to kick back.

Even at three quarter time we were only 7 points down.All we had to do was stop Hawkins ! Make the change malthouse he did't mix things up
Yes we had a few players under done,but the blatant fact was glaring.

Stop hawkins and we would have won the game. By mixing things up we could have upset their structures and confused them.
Dawes was having a stinker,put him on hawkins he was more fitter than reid and stronger at least hawkins would have not had it that easy,

Reid could have gone forward,or we could have put Tarrant up forward,his pace would have made geelong more accountable.

See ya Mick thanks ,bring in bucks asap !

 

[cats070911]

Because ya shit.

 

[Premiers2011]

Hi im new to bigfooty and would just like to say well done to your boys who played their hearts out on Saturday and gave it their absolute all. You should be very proud of the way they played. I dont think anyone could blame this on injuries as they were given the ok to play by the club physios and im sure players wouldnt have been as selfish to go in their not knowing if they could produce at AFL level. You guys played against one of the best teams to have played on a footy field and really took it up to them in the 3rd quarter until the cats flexed their muscle in the last quarter (similar footy to the 2nd qtr of round 24). I knew after watching that round 24 game that the cats would win the grand final. A lot of people kept saying that it was a dead rubber (both teams knew they would hold back a bit) but ive played high level football and i know getting beaten by 96 points is a massive blow to a teams confidence and generally not a good sign. You can only play as good as your allowed to play. Geelong are harder at the ball and when your first to the footy the other team has no chance. Good luck for next year and im sure you will be up there again.

 

[lgarth80]

Red Time (after 25 mins in quarters)
Q1: Geelong 1.0.6 v Collingwood 0.1.1
Q2: Geelong 2.0.12 v Collingwood 0.0.0
Q3: Geelong 2.0.12 v Collingwood 1.1.7
Q4: Geelong 0.2.2 v Collingwood 0.1.1

5.2 vs 1.3
I reckon that made a fair difference in the end, and that's all down to overall gut fitness, which to be fair could not have been managed much better.

 

[Checkside35]

Actually, if you go back to the foot show interview Mick said something that stuck with me at the time ... he said that his state of mind was not 100% due to the loss of his mother and that is why he agreed with it. I thought that spoke volumes.


Your club could not give Mick a role he would have ever been happy with while still keeping Buckley content. It created division, two separate camps and in my view took your focus away from what was important, THE FLAG.


Just do not think Buckley will get that commitment from the group ... and that was your biggest strength.

Malthouse spoke about the perspective that those issues gave him when making the decision. Sam Newman should never be allowed to interview anybody as his constant interjections and jumping to massive, often idiotic conclusions blurs people's understanding of what is actually being said. Journos exaggerate for the sake of a story. Perception is clouded by expectation in this case. Everyone else wanted the Pies back to back campaign to fail, latched onto the disharmony theory and now think that this derailed the Pies. MM made a massive blue going on TFS. It's aimed at the lowest common denominator and should not be looked at as a serious attempt to dissect footy issues. It's football's version of Today Tonight and even BF's Bay 13.

Even idiots like Patrick Smith who wrote a hubris article early in the year has jumped on it again and saying I told you so, Hubris cost Collingwood the flag. The idiot gives little to no credit to a remarkable Geelong side. With no sports science background, he has a crack at the club for the Arizona trips throughout the year. Says they should have rested at home. WTF would he know? The Pies lose.......Arizona is an example of Hubris. Moron. If only he knew that trolls on the Bay had beat him to the punch.

Don't apologise for what you said before, no need. It's a robust football discussion, opinions welcome and yours wasn't a troll.