Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

RudeBoy wrote:

Meredith1965 wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:Next week's performance by Cox and Cameron will probably determine which one joins Grundy for our game against the Dees. On today's form, I'd go with Cox. Whoever misses out will be unlucky, but 3 into 2 don't go and there's no way we'd be silly enough to play 3 ruckmen.

If Essendon can play Wright as a permanent forward I don’t see why we can’t playCameron as one. He’s a good kick, pretty mobile and a strong mark.

Which of our other forwards would you drop to fit in Cameron? Having 3 ruckmen, regardless of where they play, would slow us down imo. Remember, I have a feeling Fly would relish an opportunity to squeeze in Henry into our forward set up as well. At least we have choices.

It may be too late in the season to try it, but I would send Checkers back, probably for Murphy. Sides with big forward lines are killing us in the air, and we lack a KPF which Cameron could supply. Cameron should be good for Checkers’ 2-3 goals a game.

Meredith1965 wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:

Meredith1965 wrote: If Essendon can play Wright as a permanent forward I don’t see why we can’t playCameron as one. He’s a good kick, pretty mobile and a strong mark.

Which of our other forwards would you drop to fit in Cameron? Having 3 ruckmen, regardless of where they play, would slow us down imo. Remember, I have a feeling Fly would relish an opportunity to squeeze in Henry into our forward set up as well. At least we have choices.

It may be too late in the season to try it, but I would send Checkers back, probably for Murphy. Sides with big forward lines are killing us in the air, and we lack a KPF which Cameron could supply. Cameron should be good for Checkers’ 2-3 goals a game.

I’m sure that coach Fly McRae must be thinking about how to play all three of Grundy, Cox & Cameron in the same team. Essendon’s Sam Draper was dominating & Cameron struggled to complete against him at Center squares and around the ground. I thought Cox did better than Cameron in ruck and around the ground but Cameron looks more dangerous up forward. I’m now thinking Collingwood’s best team may look like this:
B: Maynard, Moore, Howe
HB: Crisp:Murphy. Quaynor
C: Sidebottom, Adams: J. Daicos
HF: Ginnivan, Mihocek: McCreey
F: Elliott, Johnson, Cameron
R: Grundy, Pendlebury, DeGoey
IC: Cox, Noble, N.Daicos, Lipinski
Emerg: Hoskins-Elliott, Carmichael, Henry, Ruscoe

The emergence of Johnston as a marking forward is very promising and now surely any interest in McStay is only as a fullback, allowing Moore to play more as a Center Half Back to be able to provide a more attacking role where his superb field kicking and drive off the halfback line can be a real weapon for the team or as a depth player.
I'm worried that Henry hasn't yet signed an extension to commit to Collingwood. Perhaps he is the recruit Geelong are sitting on to reunite with his brother and be the replacement for the aging Hawkins? Given our current depth as long as we got two first round picks for this talented, but inconsistent forward I would prefer to see him go instead of letting DeGoey or Grundy go to other clubs. There may be a juggle of Ginnivan, Johnston and Henry for two spots in the forward line.
Good to have some depth in the team selection options and I expect the next month will show which of this trio shows the consistency to justify their selection.

If Coxy gets relegated, reckon a few teams will want him

eddiesmith wrote:Given we were winning the hitouts and losing the clearances then Grundy winning more to his feet won’t solve it. It showed how badly we need strong midfielders, so JDG back in and Taranto for Grundy makes us a far stronger side than keeping the status quo. Plus gives us a decent bit of salary cap relief to afford the upgrade of Nick Daicos next year.

Hard to believe after yesterday you still think we are a better team this year without Grundy in the side. Taranto is only being looked at as a possible JDG replacement and Nick signed an initial 4 year contract

would think yesterdays game puts the "do we really need Grundy" discussion to bed - not that it wasn't clear before hand anyway.

MJ23 wrote:would think yesterdays game puts the "do we really need Grundy" discussion to bed - not that it wasn't clear before hand anyway.

It won’t for one person on here

Boot wrote: I'm worried that Henry hasn't yet signed an extension to commit to Collingwood. Perhaps he is the recruit Geelong are sitting on to reunite with his brother and be the replacement for the aging Hawkins? Given our current depth as long as we got two first round picks for this talented, but inconsistent forward I would prefer to see him go instead of letting DeGoey or Grundy go to other clubs. There may be a juggle of Ginnivan, Johnston and Henry for two spots in the forward line.

I can’t see us getting two first rounders for Henry. Maybe one first and one second rounder at best.

[/quote]It may be too late in the season to try it, but I would send Checkers back, probably for Murphy. Sides with big forward lines are killing us in the air, and we lack a KPF which Cameron could supply. Cameron should be good for Checkers’ 2-3 goals a game.[/quote]

Negative ghost-rider, pattern is full.
+, we beat St.Kilda, with a combination of Membrey & King. We kicked ourselves out of the game against Geelong when they had Hawkins and Cameron.
The scrappy Lions match I watched live, and could have easily gone our way, we just couldn't get our run and carry going. At the time the Lions were on top of the ladder post a 4 game winning streak, that would stretch to 10.
NB, we've lost twice this year at the MCG, to ladder leaders Geelong by 13 points and Richmond, when Lynch had a night out.

Checkers is a different player to Cameron. Checkers is a bullocking, lead-up forward and invaluable ground player. Cameron a mobile contested marking tall who can relieve in the ruck. There's room in the forward line for both of them.
If Murphy as you suggest is a weak link, it'll be in the midfield that will need to quell the forward entries to counter that unfolding.

What we're doing now is winning, the system is working and improving. We're clearly well coached and the players have bought into the system.
The issue will be is not when Grundy comes back, but how quickly he regains touch and match fitness.
It's under this scenario that post Grundy having a run in the magoos, we might see Macrae continue to play all 3 talls, offering Grundy the ability to rest on the bench, as opposed to resting in the forward line.

A positive leading into finals, is we finally have depth and competition for spots. There's some good tests leading into September to further tune up this unit and game plan.

I think the team is starting to settle and (at risk of starting another dreary Best 22 thread) will look something like this Week 1 of finals.
We've got the China shop bulls in JDG, Adams, Mihocek, Maynard and McCreery ;
the class of Pendles, Nick & Josh Daicos
the veteran experience of Pendles, Sidey, Howe and Elliott ;
a line breaking hard run & carry group of IQ, Noble, Crisp, Lipinski ;
a tall grouping of Grundy, Cox, Murphy, Moore & Cameron and ;
a bit of the old X-factor in JDG, Nick D, Elliott, Ginnivan and Johnson.

B 37.Maynard 28.Murphy 38.Howe
HB 35.Daicos 30.Moore 3.Quaynor

C 7.Daicos 13.Adams 22.Sidebottom
R 4.Grundy 2.JDG 25.Crisp

HF 5.Elliott 41.Mihocek 33.Ginnivan
F 31.McCreery 14.Cameron 40.Johnson

INT 46.Cox 1.Lipinski 10. Pendlebury 9.Noble
EMG 45.Carmichael, 32. WHE, 8.Bianco, 16.Henry, 21.Ruscoe, 6.Brown

I reckon Maynard will get a week or two off, you can see in the moments post the manic celebration his shoulder clearly distressed him. If he's missing for a period, we have sufficient depth to cover.

Now, back to the last quarter replay...

Skids wrote:

Hiss wrote:We should never have signed a contract like this! Disgraceful money for kicking leather around a paddock! Our Society has completely lost it ! Let’s hope we can trade him asap . We don’t build great Teams by paying individuals this sickening amount of money. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a capitalist pig!

Would be an apt post... in 1925

Look those days are what made our Club what it is today . When we played at our real home ground Victoria Park, any talented kid would have given anything to wear our Club jumper . Now these modern players want millions ! What happened to the glory and prestige of playing for the most magnificent football Club in living history? It makes me choke on my morning porridge. Don’t get me started on the women wanting to get paid mens wages! I am old enough to remember the Womens Military Auxiliary. I’ll tell you what , these modern players need to be conscripted. That will teach em about loyalty .

Prexm68 wrote:

eddiesmith wrote:Given we were winning the hitouts and losing the clearances then Grundy winning more to his feet won’t solve it. It showed how badly we need strong midfielders, so JDG back in and Taranto for Grundy makes us a far stronger side than keeping the status quo. Plus gives us a decent bit of salary cap relief to afford the upgrade of Nick Daicos next year.

Hard to believe after yesterday you still think we are a better team this year without Grundy in the side. Taranto is only being looked at as a possible JDG replacement and Nick signed an initial 4 year contract

9-2 without him
3-3 with him

Yeah such a better side with Grundy…

By god, you have to feel sorry for these blokes, labouring away in vain: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... -0027/html

MJ23 wrote:would think yesterdays game puts the "do we really need Grundy" discussion to bed - not that it wasn't clear before hand anyway.

It was probably clear beforehand, but not in the way you think, and, in claiming that the game added anything definitive to the discussion, you seem to have ignored many facts, one of which is the close similarity of this game, when Grundy was not playing, with the Anzac Day game, when Grundy was playing, with the two games following the same pattern of Collingwood charging out of the blocks, at which stage it appeared that a ten-goal victory was coming, only to have Essendon take charge for the middle stages of the game, until a late rally in the final quarter and narrow win.

Grundy is a contracted star. If he decides to explore his options then good on him. Whilst he’s on our list we are a far better club with than without him.

It’s a professional sport… what’s with all the draconian, amateur hour, 80’s hate?

Wonka wrote:

MJ23 wrote:would think yesterdays game puts the "do we really need Grundy" discussion to bed - not that it wasn't clear before hand anyway.

It was probably clear beforehand, but not in the way you think, and, in claiming that the game added anything definitive to the discussion, you seem to have ignored many facts, one of which is the close similarity of this game, when Grundy was not playing, with the Anzac Day game, when Grundy was playing, with the two games following the same pattern of Collingwood charging out of the blocks, at which stage it appeared that a ten-goal victory was coming, only to have Essendon take charge for the middle stages of the game, until a late rally in the final quarter and narrow win.

You may recall that in the ANZAC game it was Grundy who kicked the sealer goal to win the game for Collingwood having already damaged his knee in a rucking dual with Essendon's Sam Draper. It was a courageous effort and confirmed that Grundy is an elite ruckman due to his influence around the ground. I can't understand the push to get rid of one of the elite players and most influential players in the competition when we won't be able to replace him with anyone who is half as good. The club has stated that we will not go through another Trelaor type overload of talent and pay the salary of players playing for opposition clubs, hence I think that puts to bed and ends any validity that Grundy will be playing for anyone other than Collingwood next year.
Unfortunately I can't be as confident that DeGoey will be at Collingwood next year but I hope he is.

^ ^ ^

I tend to agree and the reasons are simple. It needs for all three parties to agree before Grundy goes anywhere.
It needs for only DeGoey to want out and him finding a new home would happen. The return coming back is an entirely different can of worms conversation
The thing to remember re Grundy, is that IF he was to leave, then Collingwood would genuinely believe they are serious winners of any outcome of that trade. I don’t know how that would look but we should always remain open minded enough to believe if Grundy goes, the club ultimately believes the return is a better gain than a Grundy loss. It would need to be significant but don’t dismiss it.