Pre-Match: The Mighty Pies V Dogs - All comments here thanks

Two_Pies · Post by **Two_Pies** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:09 pm

Ev'rybody's talkin bout Williams, Walker, Goughy, and Rhycey,Woey, Burnsey & O'Bree

All we are saying is give GUY A CHANCE !!

All we are saying is give GUY A CHANCE !!

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:50 pm

JLC wrote:I cannot see Richards and Rocca two tall forwards coming in and the selectors dropping two smaller players.

I think Walker and/or McKee should be dropped along with Williams. If we go in too tall the Bulldogs midfield will run us off our feet.

This is the ideal game for Leon to try and provide some spark to the team. Id rather have Leon in the team as at least he has the capability to kick goals and be lively around goals. The goal in the last quarter showed what he can do. The challenge for Leon is to play well for a whole game.

I still believe Leon will prove his doubters wrong.

jlc

Your right on Leon. I still want him to be dropped but he has a good record against the dogs and is the type of player to steal the game.

burnsy17 · Post by **burnsy17** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:35 pm

I think we can take alot of heart from the last quarter last week... whilst Richmond took the foot off the peddle, the first 10 minutes or so started looking like the Collingwood of old. We had a bit more run, some flowing play and Didak and co. started to look half hungry.

This week, i dont think MM will be too savage, but there will be one or two changes...

B: Johnson Wakelin Presti
HB: Clement J. Cloke Cole
C: Woewodin Buckley Lonie
HF: Didak Rocca Davis
F: O'Bree Tarrant Richards
R: Fraser Licuria Burns

Bench: Swan, Williams, Lokan, Holland

In: Rocca, Richards, Swan
Out: Walker, Shaw, McKee

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:50 pm

If we run, run and don't stop running, we'll win. During the 1st 10 mins of the 1st quarter and the 1st 10 mins of the 3rd quarter, as BUrnsy17 said, looked like the Collingwood of old. When guys like Johno and Lones are braking the lines and going for searching runs, you know the momentum is in our favour.

Post by **Cam** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:03 pm

Nice beatles twist 2 pies, like it.

Two_Pies · Post by **Two_Pies** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:01 am

Ta Cam. Just read your Trolling post again still lmao !!

What made the Dogs so competitive last week was their midfield and you'd have to say Rawlings. Not having seen the game I'm relying on a Doggies supporter's views. Their toughness in the centre cannot be underestimated. Darcy is a superb ruck and mobile option. We cannot play Stunning !! He simply would lack pace. I think Richards has ruck smarts as we watched him very closely at the Swans game and he was hitting targets in ruck duels, a sight rarely seen these days. He did not even attempt to grab the ball in the ruck which poor old Steve did again last Friday. For those that are calling for him to improve and get senior listing soon or get delisted take note that he has suffered from a genetic disorder that resulted in an inability to retain body mass. That seems to have settled down now and the kid has now bulked up. Check out his photo on the CFC website in comparison to previous years.

hotpies · Post by **hotpies** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:07 pm

I think Davis just need to hang closer to the ball and just grab it and kick it into space a little more in those tight areas of the game. I also think our ruck tend to want to find targets to much instead of tapping it into space and waiting for a runner like leon or ryche to crum it and kick on.

erniedog · Post by **erniedog** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:57 pm

Other than Rocca, my first change would be to include C.Cloke. This is based on the need to develop an appropriately "balanced" team.

My Reasoning is as follows. Rocca's absence has highlighted Collingwood's weakness when he is not there. When Molloy was playing well he covered this weakness and the team played through him confident that at least the ball wouldn't come straight back. I believe that that is why J.Cloke was tried up forward last week and in the G.F. However he is not physically big enough for the role.

Either C.Cloke or Walker could be groomed for this Molloy like role. I prefer Cloke because 1) he is a better natural mark. 2) he has a better football brain. 3) he can pinch hit in the ruck. Thus as a matter of longer term team balance, Cloke should be developed as quickly as possible.

After Cloke, in order of preference (ie. depending how many changes are considered reasonable) I would include:-
McGough- can be and has been a matchwinner. Any player with matchwinning capabilities should be fostered.

Richards:- besides relieving Fraser, would also free Fraser for a damaging forward role.

Nixon:- has shown something and could be trained to take Clement's role in the back releasing Clement to the wing where he could be damaging both offensively and defensively.

King, Swan, R. Shaw, Lokan, Mullins, Williams, O'bree, Davis could battle it out for the back pocket supporting Johnson or forward pocket as required. Not sure what role Davidson would be suited to in terms of team balance assuming Rocca Tarrant C.Cloke and Fraser play there.

One final comment. Lonie and J. Cloke have shown themselves to be amongst the best in the league in specific roles - H.B. and sweeper. They have not succeeded anywhere else. Perhaps we should accept that and play them only in those positions.

burnsy17 · Post by **burnsy17** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:43 pm

IN: Davidson, Richards, Nixon, Rocca

OUT: shaw walker McKee Williams

Your thoughts everyone?

scoobydoo · Post by **scoobydoo** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:54 pm

sounds/looks good.Maybe M.M wanted to give the young ones an extra for Willy. last week b 4 selecting them in the senior's

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:00 am

burnsy17 wrote:IN: Davidson, Richards, Nixon, Rocca

OUT: shaw walker McKee Williams

Your thoughts everyone?

Very good changes, although I'd love to see Goughy swapped for Lokan.

Blanch · Post by **Blanch** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:27 am

Assasin wrote:Gee , the dogs looked good against wet toast , they should have won.
Wet toast have a ruckman and a goal kicking small forward , two things we 'aint got.

Dogs by 35 points.

Agreed, wet toasts ruckman and small forward would be better than ours...but then again look at their full back V presti, mcdougal V Rocca, Cox V Tarrant.

they've got 2 players we haven't, we've got key position players they haven't...hard to compare the two.

Pies by 35.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:40 am

Looking forward to the game.

I think we really needed those changes, the players are now on notice, and they have to perform.

Bartros · Post by **Bartros** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:25 pm

I would just to say that I wish Guy,Bo and Tommy all the best for Saturday!!!

Please can we not bag them if they have a bad one first up they will be giving everything they have!!!

pies417 · Post by **pies417** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:40 pm

Have to agree with blanch seriously assassin you cant ignore the return of gibralter up front.

And good to see MM finally dispense with that dud Williams. Lets hope it is for good! Hopefully the kids tear the dogs to bits.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Pre-Match: The Mighty Pies V Dogs - All comments here thanks

PEACE LOVE PIES

Changes Etc