Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Piesnchess wrote:IF Goldstein retires, as is very likely, he could end up at Norf, under ol Clarko. Hope he enjoys playing in front of 12 000 fans at Norf home games, if that does come to pass. ! Karma says hello.

Eddie M keeps on saying, "If the draft works, he'll be at North." (Eddie must mean the whole player movement thing, not "draft". The draft isn't relevant to Grundy.)

Dunno why Eddie thinks that. North are trying to rebuild. Why would they want an expensive senior player? If they did get a senior player in, the value they'd expect from him would be mentoring the kids, lifting their standards, etc. But Grundy has no leadership skills and no footy IQ, so he'd be an atrocious mentor.

Jezza wrote:

Johnno75 wrote:^^ Will that mean both Collingwood and Melbourne would be paying part of his salary? Surely that be an AFL first.
...

My understanding is that our salary arrangement is only with Melbourne.

If anything, Melbourne is in a bigger bungle as to how they manage this and whether they look to offload him.

What exactly does "my understanding" mean, Jezza?

Media are still speculating on Grundy making history by becoming the first player to be paid by 3 clubs at the same time. Media count on this to make it easier for a trade to be done.

Footy Classified said the interested clubs are:
Port
Sydney
Geebung.

Port & Sydney reckon it'll take a 2nd-round draft pick, but only if Melbourne pay part of his salary.

Wonder who the first player to be paid by 2 clubs was... Heater??

GRUNDYS next stop will be Kardinia park, geelong, he can go there an keep mummys boy OLLIE COMPANY. lock it in,

Piesnchess wrote:GRUNDYS next stop will be Kardinia park, geelong, he can go there an keep mummys boy OLLIE COMPANY. lock it in,

Dunno if anybody else has mentioned this yet: both players have had 4 coaches in three seasons:

2021: Buckley & Harvey
2022: McRae
2023: Goodwin [Melb] / Scott [Geebung]

Should Grundy depart by the 2023 trade period, that'll be 5 coaches in 4 seasons for him - is that some kind of record?

stui magpie wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote:^ If Melbourne were serious about winning, they would drop Gawn and just ruck Grundy. He smashed Collingwood on Anzac Day. ...

When did we play Melbourne om ANZAC day?

In fantasy football, where Grundy does very well!!!

K wrote:...

stui magpie wrote:Since we're likely to play Cox and Cameron, wonder if Melbourne will bring Grundy in?

On objective grounds, they'd have to be insane. Maybe if Goodwin wants some psychological ploy... But King's Birthday woulda been the time for any psychological effect.


Melbourne's win percentage 2023

With Grundy (and no Gawn) 50%
With Grundy 59%
Without Grundy 100%

Of course, the Grundy Effect is not just on Melbourne...


Collingwood's win percentage 2021-2

With Grundy 27%
Without Grundy 76%

Well, he played nearly every game in a season where we finished 17th and was subsequently injured for most of a season where we finished 4th, but I think one would have to be pretty churlish to attribute either of those results to his presence or absence.

(It’s also quite selective to look at only those two years and not the one where, say, he won the Copeland in a side that played off in a Grand Final.)

K wrote:...
Collingwood's win percentage 2021-2

With Grundy 27%
Without Grundy 76%

For David :

Collingwood's win percentage 2021 (Buckley/Harvey)

With Grundy 20%
Without Grundy 100%

Collingwood's win percentage 2022 (McFly)

With Grundy 50%
Without Grundy 74%


Could try to look at 2019-20, but I reckon he didn't miss any games then (if so, no results)...


And, David, take a look at Melbourne's recent form. It's gobsmacking. They were really struggling. They dumped Grundy. They immediately won and looked good. But then Petty got injured, so they recalled Grundy. They immediately lost and looked bad. So they dumped Grundy again. They immediately won again and looked good again.

Melbourne's form going up and down is totally in synch with dumping Grundy and playing Grundy.

I have been a critic of Grundy as a 1st ruck for some time now so no surprises he finds himself looking for a 3rd club here.
A first ruck who doesn't get clearances in the ruck, doesn't influence with his marking and doesn't kick goals is pretty much a bust imo.

All the arguments about Grundy come back to one thing. As soon as he landed his massive contract he was never the same player.

Culprit wrote:All the arguments about Grundy come back to one thing. As soon as he landed his massive contract he was never the same player.

This, plus hes an intellectual, very smart cookie, Uni graduate, and they have other plans, careers, that outweigh football, later on.

I reckon Goodwin will pick him to play us, the temptation to have him , as a former Magpie, to play well against us, in a huge Final, will be too tempting for him,and he will select him. Hope he does, and it blows up in his moosh. Bring it on.!

^ He would be mad not to. But the real move he needs to make - whether or not he plays Grundy - is to drop Gawn. Gawn has had virtually no success against Collingwood over his career. Before the KB game this year, Gawn had not played in a winning team against Collingwood for 7 seasons. He has a career record of 10 losses from 14 games against Collingwood.

jonmac1954 wrote:I have been a critic of Grundy as a 1st ruck for some time now so no surprises he finds himself looking for a 3rd club here.
A first ruck who doesn't get clearances in the ruck, doesn't influence with his marking and doesn't kick goals is pretty much a bust imo.

It makes you wonder why on earth our club gave him a 7 yr $7 million contract! There's no point blaming Ned Guy, as it would have been a football department decision at the time. It just goes to prove what I've always known - there are are a lot of idiots in important and powerful positions making stupid decisions which effect all of us. This is the case, way beyond the sporting arena. Many people assume that leaders are generally smart and competent. Too often this is not the case.

^

Not just a football department decision, the Board would have needed to sign off on that.

Off the back of consecutive AA seasons and being crucial to the then coaches style, it's understandable but hindsight is a biatch.