Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

After today:

Played in 4 GF losses:
Rampe
Lloyd
Parker (But played in the 2012 victory)

Played in 3 GF losses:
Papley
Heeney

Played in 2 GF losses:
McCartin
Blakey
Cunningham
Warner
Florent
Gulden
Hayward
Rowbottom
Fox
McInerney
McLean
Campbell
Grundy (1 with Collingwood in 2018)

Played in 1 GF loss:
Melican
McDonald
Armatey
Roberts
Jordon (But "played" in the Demons win in 2021)

Premiership Tally:

Carlton = 16
Essendon = 16
Collingwood = 16
Hawthorn = 13
Richmond = 13
Melbourne = 13
Geelong = 10
Fitzroy = 8
Sydney = 5
North Melbourne = 4
West Coast = 4
Brisbane Lions = 4
Adelaide = 2
Western Bulldogs = 2
St Kilda = 1
Port Adelaide = 1

The picture we've all been waiting for. Suck on that Papley!

Jezza wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:57 pm The picture we've all been waiting for. Suck on that Papley!

Avatar worthy...at least until the calendar turns to 2025

Suck it papsmear. Swans shat the bed again. Grundy what a boutso

On a serious note the talk back radio was scathing today on Sydney’s effort across the board and how the players failed to execute the game plan
The plan was to restrict the Lions uncontested marks and methodical all movement down field until they saw a open player and then let them go bang quickly
Also they wanted to restrict the Lions run from behind using overlap runners with quick short handballs
They failed to apply pressure at the source all day
Finally they thought they had a real advantage in the ruck and midfield. The plan was to hit the ball as far outside the contest they could to combat the Lions inside game where Neale, Ashcroft, Dunkley do there best work

The Lions on the other hand attacked what Sydney believed was there strengths.
They challenged Heeney, Warner, Gulden to make quick decisions
They challenged Blakey to defend when the ball goes in quickly, Blakey like to play in front and intercept. The Lions kept slipping out the back and leaving Blakey in no man’s land
Finally they went after Grundy’s lack of mobility around the ground and he’s inability to hit the ball anywhere other than his own feet. The Lions mids just sharked it all day

Really it was a tale of 2 coaches who couldn’t get there players to follow a plan and the lack of a plan B from Sydney when needed
Take away the last quarter when the Lions where in bruise free football mode just counting down the minutes the scoreboard flattered Sydney and its total inept players

^ The game may have manifested as a failure of gameplans - but, at heart, Sydney were actually soft and uncompetitive. They did not attack the ball at all and many of their team looked disinterested in the physical contest. Thus, the Brisbane bullies ran all over them, whereas they were largely unsighted against Collingwood last year.

Frankly, Sydney should be embarrassed to perform like that after the season they had. And, of course, Longmire should fall on his sword - he obviously does not know how to prepare a team fit for September. The premiership win he did have looked like a fluke at the time. If Franklin had kicked straight for Hawthorn that day, Sydney likely would not have won. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it looks like a complete accident.

Longmire prepares a team to win on the SCG where they can stifle opposition run and carry. Put that plan on a ground over a 1000 square metres bigger and they are all at sea and the defensive holes start opening up. Once that occurs the Swans have got nothing, as has been shown now again and again. Brisbane are more used to the MCG now and watching them yesterday, you can see where they learned from us last year.

I haven't put the boot into Longmire for a bit - but I've just realised that the Swans under his coaching are the only team in history to have been beaten twice in Grand Finals by teams that weren't good enough to make the top four. Moreover, they did it as minor premiers, both times. So, "kick".

Longmire’s game plan and lack of a plan B should be questioned massively
I posted some time ago they are flat track bullies
They won most of there games on the back of Heeney Warner Rowbottom Gulden Blakey and some little patches of McMartin
Other than that they had no real impact from any other player consistently
They allowed the Lions to play the game exactly the way they wanted

Just pointing out that Lincoln McCarthy missed out.

Paul Roos has weighed in. That’s likely the beginning of the end for a bunch of chokers:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-30/ ... /104414584

P4S at some point in time you have to realise all the former players, coaches and media opinions have majority said Grundy was ineffective in the GF
Surely you can’t believe 95% of the opinions are wrong but you and the 5% are right ?
The AFL rating which you often use in defence of Grundy rated him a 3 which placed him like equal 13th in the swans team (forte was rated a 6)
The SEN team of the week is a running joke
Did you realise that same team onky had Nick D in there team of the week on 11 occasions through out the season but had Treloar in it 12 times
Given there was only 2 recognised rucks it’s not really a achievement to be proud of
So I put little credence in what they say
Finally and most damning stat was the near map and distance traveled in the game
Grundy barely got into the defensive 50 or attacking 50. He played 8% more game time than Forte travelled 1.12klm less in distance
Equally as damning is they showed footage of Grundy walking 30m behind Forte who pushed forward and ended up with a shoot on goal
Finally the swans had to get there tall forwards up the line because Grundy provided no contest in outlet kick. He actually had 1 mark up the line while Forte had 2 and 4 spoils
Just admit you where completely wrong in your assessment of his performance and while he was the worst swans player he was far from the best

^ Grundy was Sydney's only 4-quarter player and he was the only effective ruckman on the field. The AFL site ratings reflect that the Swans lost and the Bears won - no-one in their right mind could give Fort 6 votes and Grundy 3. What those ratings signify, in fact, is that they didn't want to be mean about Fort's game because his team won. Every Bears player, except the sub who got on for 10 minutes, was rated at least a 6. In fact, they rated him in the bottom quarter of Bears players - only 5 players (including him) were given a 6. They gave Rowbottom an 8 - he wasn't the Swans' worst but a 5 would have been about right, two Swans a 6 and everyone else 5 or less.