View Full Version : Reece and Tarkyn
lindsay_bulldogs
22 Jun 2008, 22:59
Who was on these guys? Kick our buts all night!
I know Ray was on Reece at times but every time a turnover came he was no where near him.
Gilbee got dragged off Tarkyn after being pants in first half.
Don't we have any players fast enough for these two?
Coons17
22 Jun 2008, 23:03
Ray was nowhere near Reece because as i stated he decided that he would wait in the open hoping the ball would be turned over and then he would be the link man. Not accountable enough, when people say gee Ray gave us alot of run and carry tonight, you have to think why he was able to have that much space. Because he refused to play his opponent tight tonight, lucky for us Shaw was inaccurate and did not cost us the game.
Who's Reece?
I thought they sold plumbing supplies?
lancaster
22 Jun 2008, 23:14
re gilbee and tarkyn
pace didn't seem to be the issue, he just consistently outpointed him in the air, gilbee seemed to have no idea contesting one on one. He'd just push off him for an easy one on one.
bit of a worry really
williams on the other hand seemed to have him easily covered.
sneakydaycrawler
23 Jun 2008, 01:44
Just for you information Ryce is a tagger. So he would be on your guy not the other way around.
lindsay_bulldogs
23 Jun 2008, 18:58
Ray was nowhere near Reece because as i stated he decided that he would wait in the open hoping the ball would be turned over and then he would be the link man. Not accountable enough, when people say gee Ray gave us alot of run and carry tonight, you have to think why he was able to have that much space. Because he refused to play his opponent tight tonight, lucky for us Shaw was inaccurate and did not cost us the game.
Do you think that Eade was happy for Ray to provide run the other way and not man up on Shaw?
I would have my self but maybe Eade thought Ray was hurting Collingwood the other way?
X_box_X
23 Jun 2008, 19:10
Rhyce was on Cooney. He got Judd the week before, so tends to pick up the opposition's gun midfielder more weeks than not.
Bodicifer
23 Jun 2008, 19:16
Rhyce was up to his old tricks last night, looking great on his long runs when nobody is near him but kept fumbling under pressure around packs because he kept taking his eyes off the ball...things don't change much a-la J Brown grand final effort.
lindsay_bulldogs
23 Jun 2008, 19:21
Rhyce was on Cooney. He got Judd the week before, so tends to pick up the opposition's gun midfielder more weeks than not.
That means Cooney was the naughty boy not manning up.
cookieDogs
23 Jun 2008, 19:28
Ray wasnt on Rhyce. Rhyce was on Cooney.
The reason Ray was the closest to Rhyce when he took that mark was cos he was running. Cooney was even further away.
Maybe Rhyce Shaw is from the Kane Cornes school of 'tagging'. If you just tell everyone you're a tagger nobody will ever tag you.
always right
23 Jun 2008, 20:29
Ray was nowhere near Reece because as i stated he decided that he would wait in the open hoping the ball would be turned over and then he would be the link man. Not accountable enough, when people say gee Ray gave us alot of run and carry tonight, you have to think why he was able to have that much space. Because he refused to play his opponent tight tonight, lucky for us Shaw was inaccurate and did not cost us the game.
Seems the consensus is that Ray wasn't on Shaw. What is your alternate theory?
Coons17
24 Jun 2008, 13:37
Okay.
When we had the ball yes Shaw would go to Cooney but as soon as Collingwood had the ball if you actually watched the game you would have noticed Cooney would zone off and stay a kick and a half behind the play trying to force Collingwood to keep playing the boundary line. This was a clear tactic from Eade. So when Collingwood had the ball, Ray who lined up on Shaw on the wing was responsible for him, NOT Cooney.
Who was on these guys? Kick our buts all night!
I know Ray was on Reece at times but every time a turnover came he was no where near him.
Gilbee got dragged off Tarkyn after being pants in first half.
Don't we have any players fast enough for these two?
Rhys Shaw failed to have an impact after half time.
re gilbee and tarkyn
pace didn't seem to be the issue, he just consistently outpointed him in the air, gilbee seemed to have no idea contesting one on one. He'd just push off him for an easy one on one.
Has anyone else noticed that Gilbs seems to have lost the ability to effectively spoil this season? He was one of the best one-on-one spoilers in the business from 2005-2007.
bludger
24 Jun 2008, 13:43
I might have to ring KB and complain about the rules commitee. Isn't it an advantage to have a huge head on the field? Think players with oversized heads should not be allowed to play. Ray couldn't get near the ball because Shaws pumpkin was in the way.
Timmy Callan would have been a good match up for Lockyer. Sooner he's back the better.
Bodicifer
24 Jun 2008, 14:18
Has anyone else noticed that Gilbs seems to have lost the ability to effectively spoil this season? He was one of the best one-on-one spoilers in the business from 2005-2007.
Yep, for his height and size I was always amazed at his ability to spoil on bigger blokes but this year I think it has just bee a form thing.
stefoid
24 Jun 2008, 15:13
I was amazed to see cooney standing by himself at stoppages, they obviously wanted shaw and cooney to go head to head - could have worked for them if shaw could kick a goal on the run, but apparently he cant.
Funny thing
I thought the Collingwood rucks performed better Sunday night without Josh Fraser than they do when he plays.
I thought the Collingwood rucks performed better Sunday night without Josh Fraser than they do when he plays.
Fraser is a chump when it comes to actual ruck work. Collingwood's ruck work at the stoppages on Sunday was as effective as it has ever looked since the Monkhorst days.