Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Museman wrote:


Harry played on there was no stop play...no need to play on the ball was in play....

Harry could have taken 20 steps, it doesn't matter he wasn't in a good position to make the call...as I said players often do that, the key is Sinclair made an incorrect decision....he was in a position to see how play might unfold.

I wasn't bagging the bloke out, I was simply stating it's still a part of his game that worries me, (a certain R Shaw used to have a similar panic type mode) I also stated I'd seen him play similar type games only to taper off in form...observations that's about it.

Harry called for the ball and is a 100+ games player
A kid with about 20 games experienced passed to him
May not have been the best decision but to expect Sinclair to have the experience to make that call is a little unrealistic.

neil wrote:

Museman wrote:


Harry played on there was no stop play...no need to play on the ball was in play....

Harry could have taken 20 steps, it doesn't matter he wasn't in a good position to make the call...as I said players often do that, the key is Sinclair made an incorrect decision....he was in a position to see how play might unfold.

I wasn't bagging the bloke out, I was simply stating it's still a part of his game that worries me, (a certain R Shaw used to have a similar panic type mode) I also stated I'd seen him play similar type games only to taper off in form...observations that's about it.

Harry called for the ball and is a 100+ games player
A kid with about 20 games experienced passed to him
May not have been the best decision but to expect Sinclair to have the experience to make that call is a little unrealistic.

Ohh ffs, experience?? he's not a child and i'll tell you right now, there are a multitude of tac cup players that have enough "experience" that they wouldn't have fed the ball 1 foot to a teammate in a bad position.

This is the problem with the cheersqaud brigade...they seem to SFA idea about what success takes.

Its really not that hard...if it looks like it belongs in a benny hill sequence, it's probably not good football.

MOTR wrote:Just loving how Sinclair's injury is being seen as a liability. This would not always have been the case.

Hah, good call. I wasn't that long ago that there would have been sighs of relief from many that Buckley's pet was finally our of the side.

As far as Museman's criticism of the handball to the Man of Lamamba, I'd argue that they practice that instinctive handball so that you take the first option. When someone calls, you give, no time for second guessing or you get crunched. You can see them pre game (the VFL team do it too) putting the bibs on and practicing give and get by hand.

Sinclair got it, H called and Sinclair delivered it. If he had of looked, made the decision that H wasn't the best option then went looking for another one, he would have been probably crunched himself.

Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way.

Museman wrote:Its really not that hard...if it looks like it belongs in a benny hill sequence, it's probably not good football.

Ha ha, that's brilliant!

Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.

Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.

I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot.

slydog81 wrote:Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.

Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.

I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot.

exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good!

E wrote:

slydog81 wrote:Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.

Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.

I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot.

exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good!

also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable

MagpieMad wrote:

E wrote:

slydog81 wrote:Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.

Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.

I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot.

exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good!

also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable

You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you??

stui magpie wrote:Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way.

Actually, this is not so.

In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.

Watch:


1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.





2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)





3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.





4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.





5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)





6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.




Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility.

slydog81 wrote:

MagpieMad wrote:

E wrote: exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good!

also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable

You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you??

He's probably a better kick than Johnson was at the same stage of their careers.

Benny was much maligned for his disposal early on but improved it, much the same way Sinclair has done in the last year or so.

That's just your personal opinion.

^ Yep. I doubt he'll ever turn it into the deadly weapon Benny Johnson did eventually, but he certainly seems to be working on it.

stui magpie wrote:

MOTR wrote:Just loving how Sinclair's injury is being seen as a liability. This would not always have been the case.

Hah, good call. I wasn't that long ago that there would have been sighs of relief from many that Buckley's pet was finally our of the side.

As far as Museman's criticism of the handball to the Man of Lamamba, I'd argue that they practice that instinctive handball so that you take the first option. When someone calls, you give, no time for second guessing or you get crunched. You can see them pre game (the VFL team do it too) putting the bibs on and practicing give and get by hand.

Sinclair got it, H called and Sinclair delivered it. If he had of looked, made the decision that H wasn't the best option then went looking for another one, he would have been probably crunched himself.

Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way.

If he had have ran straight by harry he would have been fine...I couldn't imagine Beams giving that ball of even in his first appearance.

As for giving to the voice...if you follow that line of logic get ready for some embarrassing moments when the opposition cottons on, though I suppose at a foot away he could always give it to the opposition voice and then tackle him......

Tannin wrote:

stui magpie wrote:Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way.

Actually, this is not so.

In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.

Watch:


1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.





2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)





3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.





4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.





5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)





6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.




Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility.

I'd humbly submit that Sinkers had a chance to sheppard and let Lumumba run clear, but still shots can be deceptive.

The handball from Sinkers was definitely on; I actually thought the play in question was a bit closer to the forward flank

How specifically, does jpg[img]



4 Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs holding the ball his head to begin with as he so do it?