News Collingwood's Best 22 - Herald Sun Predictions

[loki04]

Hawks won at the stopages 32-23 and contested possesions 142-136 so Hawks mids were on top.

Stats eh, watch the game again Freos mids were in control. You want a stat

Freo lost the game Hawks didn't win it.

Under MM we regularly won contested possession and stoppages and would lose games prior to 2010 of course.

Freo lost all momentum through their ineptitude in front of goal, momentum is a huge thing when teams are as close as they were.

 

[mike123]

Stats eh, watch the game again Freos mids were in control. You want a stat

Freo lost the game Hawks didn't win it.

Under MM we regularly won contested possession and stoppages and would lose games prior to 2010 of course.

Freo lost all momentum through their ineptitude in front of goal, momentum is a huge thing when teams are as close as they were.

I did watch the game and Hawks mids were were in control. Freo losing the game and hawks not winning it, that's not a stat, that is bs from people who underestimate the Hawks surperior midfield. As for losing games and winning contested possessions that fact is irrelevant we also won games and won contested possessions under MM prior to 2010. Whats your point? this isn't even about who won the game, you said it yourself Freo lost the game this is about who whos's midfield was on and was Hawthorn's. If you watched the game there pressure was superior and they won the stoppages and contested possessions. If you want another stat the tackles were 80-65 Hawks way, so if Hawthorn dominated in contested possessions, stoppages and tackles, how were the Freo mids on top? They had more oppurtunities to tackle yet they were flogged in the tackle count. That's Collingwood midfield dominance 2010.

 

[loki04]

I did watch the game and Hawks mids were were in control. Freo losing the game and hawks not winning it, that's not a stat, that is bs from people who underestimate the Hawks surperior midfield. As for losing games and winning contested possessions that fact is irrelevant we also won games and won contested possessions under MM prior to 2010. Whats your point? this isn't even about who won the game, you said it yourself Freo lost the game this is about who whos's midfield was on and was Hawthorn's. If you watched the game there pressure was superior and they won the stoppages and contested possessions. If you want another stat the tackles were 80-65 Hawks way, so if Hawthorn dominated in contested possessions, stoppages and tackles, how were the Freo mids on top? They had more oppurtunities to tackle yet they were flogged in the tackle count. That's Collingwood midfield dominance 2010.

Freos mids push back and congest the Hawks fwd linbe then spread hard out often breaking through and pushing forward.

Pressure of the day more like it Freos players missed numerous set shots like Fyfe who could of won the game for them had he slotted his opportunities.

This also denies Hawks goals from rebounds.

Winning clearances means s**t if it doesn't turn into a clean break from congestion and disposal to your advantage rather then a Shane O'bree hack kick.

 

[mike123]

Freos mids push back and congest the Hawks fwd linbe then spread hard out often breaking through and pushing forward.

Pressure of the day more like it Freos players missed numerous set shots like Fyfe who could of won the game for them had he slotted his opportunities.

This also denies Hawks goals from rebounds.

Winning clearances means s**t if it doesn't turn into a clean break from congestion and disposal to your advantage rather then a Shane O'bree hack kick.

That didn't work because Hawthorn had no trouble scoring. As for Fyfe's kicking, bad kicking is bad football, Fyfe is a mid who played bad football. As for denying Hawks rebound, Hawks Rebound to get the ball forward which they don't need to do because the ball is already forward because the hawks mids won the contested footy and got the ball forward already. They're not Geelong who rely on rebound to score. And yes winning clearances does mean something, it means Freo are pushed back because there mids couldn't beat the Hawks mids.

 

[BringbackHarry]

BEST 22
B: Alan Toovey (26, 114 games), Nathan Brown (25, 90 games), Nick Maxwell (30, 198 games)
HB: Marley Williams (20, 22 games), Lachlan Keeffe (23, 22 games), Clinton Young (27, 118 games)
C: Heritier Lumumba (27, 178 games), Dane Swan (29, 219 games), Steele Sidebottom (22, 108 games)
HF: Dayne Beams (23, 91 games), Travis Cloke (26, 196 games), Taylor Adams (20, 31 games)
F: Jamie Elliott (21, 35 games), Ben Reid (24, 95 games), Jesse White (25, 71 games)
Rucks: Brodie Grundy (19, 7 games), Scott Pendlebury (25, 171 games), Luke Ball (29, 206 games)
Interchange: Brent Macaffer (25, 52 games), Jarryd Blair (23, 81 games), Tyson Goldsack (26, 104 games), Josh Thomas (22, 19 games)

They weren't far off, Frosty for Keeffe and Fasolo for Adams and Sinclair or Goldsack for sub

Backs
Williams Frost Toovey
Maxwell Brown Fasolo

Mids
Grundy Pendlebury Beams
Thomas Sidebottom Young

Forwards
Swan White Ball
Reid Cloke Elliott

Interchange
Blair Lumumba Macaffer Sinclair


Emergencies
Adams Keeffe Langdon Goldsack
Dwyer Witts Kennedy Seedsman

Wildcards
Karnezis Oxley Freeman Broomhead Scharenberg

 

[BringbackHarry]

2017

Langdon Keeffe Scharenberg
Seedsman Frost Broomhead

Grundy Pendlebury Freeman
Beams Sidebottom Williams

Adams Reid Karnezis
Moore Cloke Elliott

Fasolo Thomas Witts Sinclair

Emer
Kennedy Oxley Marsh

 

[SuperSub17]

Nick Maxwell is not in our best 22.

Interesting...

 

[Kilmo]

2017

Langdon Keeffe Scharenberg
Seedsman Frost Broomhead

Grundy Pendlebury Freeman
Beams Sidebottom Williams

Adams Reid Karnezis
Moore Cloke Elliott

Fasolo Thomas Witts Sinclair

Emer
Kennedy Oxley Marsh

Good team, but no Jesse White and Nathan Brown?

 

[BringbackHarry]

Good team, but no Jesse White and Nathan Brown?

Had to make a call on a few keys.. 3 years down the track I want Moore over White and Frosty over Brown

 

[MagpieBat]

Interesting...

Trawled back to December 29 to find a comment to quote for your own amusement. Interesting.

I made that comment after watching an ageing warrior being played totally out of position by a coach who was seemingly incapable of seeing the fallacy of playing a +1 in the midfield and tasking a specialist loose man in defence with a 1v1 role.

So long as Buckley remains in this purple patch of clarity and keeps on playing Maxwell in the role he specializes in, he remains in the side. If Buckley goes back to the +1 in the middle, he doesn't.

 

[SuperSub17]

Trawled back to December 29 to find a comment to quote for your own amusement. Interesting.

I made that comment after watching an ageing warrior being played totally out of position by a coach who was seemingly incapable of seeing the fallacy of playing a +1 in the midfield and tasking a specialist loose man in defence with a 1v1 role.

So long as Buckley remains in this purple patch of clarity and keeps on playing Maxwell in the role he specializes in, he remains in the side. If Buckley goes back to the +1 in the middle, he doesn't.

No, I didn't trawl through it at all - I saw this thread had been bumped and I had a look at what some people had written at the time. Yours being the second comment in the thread.

Just amazes me how many people who potted Maxwell are being forced to eat their words now.

 

[soreplums]

I expect Kennedy to definitely be in the 22 well before 2017.

 

[PepperFace]

2017

Langdon Keeffe Scharenberg
Seedsman Frost Broomhead

Grundy Pendlebury Freeman
Beams Sidebottom Williams

Adams Reid Karnezis
Moore Cloke Elliott

Fasolo Thomas Witts Sinclair

Emer
Kennedy Oxley Marsh

Kennedy has to be in the best 22. The rest of the team looks damn good though. Still unsure about karnezis but we will see over the next few weeks if he pushes for senior selection. Moore I have my fingers crossed - hopefully he can kick straight!!

 

[Nicco_jj]

I'm still having trouble with our forward line....

Goldsack White Blair
Reid Cloke Elliot

Too tall?
I feel that whites pace and goldsacks pressure might make it work...
But there can be no witts here... If we went with this set up then it's 1 pure ruckman

 

[Tbone McGraw]

I thought about our best 22 today.

Here is my crack. Question marks beside controversial selections. Positions not important

Williams, Brown?, Toovey
Maxy?, Keeffe?, Young?
Lumamba, Caff, Swan
Elliott, Reid, Sidebottom
White, Cloke, Goldsack
Grundy, Ball?, Pendles

Beams, Blair?, Fasolo?, Dwyer?

Very unlucky are Frost, Langdon, Witts, Thomas and Adams but i thought these guys were too inexperienced or haven't proven themselves yet.

Interested in any thoughts

 

[iGNITER]

Was thinking about this before with the loss of Brown for the season, thinking we need to have Reid down back.
Interesting to see what our best 22 will look like come finals.
One of Keeffe and Frost play at FB, had to toss a coin and Keeffe came up.

Langdon has been impressive down back and is reliable. He stays in the side.
Really like Fasolo in the 22 and think having him as a sub adds a bit of x-factor and flair. He can be a bit of a swing man and come on to cover a defender or forward.
He is the kind of player that can come on and kick 2 quick goals.

Having Lumumba and Young on each wing can be dangerous but add a bit of run and carry. Both are 50-60 meter players.

Macaffer has played tagger and done the role well against some super opposition, hopefully he gets a rest of sorts and is ready to go come finals and take down some of the quality teams number 1 midfielder.

A real issue is whether we play 2 pure ruckman or not. Depending on the opposition I guess horses for courses... In the below case I have the one ruckman in the side in Grundy with JT getting the nod. He adds a bit of grunt and clearance work but also has some pace. IMO is going to be a really good player for the club and at this stage is infront of Adams and Kennedy.

B - Maxwell Keeffe Toovey
HB - Williams Reid Langdon
C - Lumumba Beams Young
HF - Swan Cloke Sidebottom
F - Elliott White Goldsack
R - Grundy Macaffer Pendlebury
INT - Ball Blair Thomas
SUB - Fasolo

EMG - Witts Kennedy Dwyer Adams Seedsman Frost Sinclair (good depth)

Thoughts?

 

[jmac70]

B - Maxwell Keeffe Toovey
HB - Williams Reid Langdon
C - Lumumba Beams Young
HF - Swan Cloke Sidebottom
F - Elliott White Goldsack
R - Grundy Macaffer Pendlebury
INT - Ball Blair Thomas
SUB - Fasolo

EMG - Witts Kennedy Dwyer Adams Seedsman Frost Sinclair (good depth)

Thoughts?

I think Frost will stay in and Reid will play forward. Langdon is having a terrific season but not sure he will hold his spot. I don't see Young as best 22 and not sure Ball will retain his spot. Also one of the rucks, Grundy at this stage, must be taken out. Seedman, Frost, Dwyer and Adams to come in.

 

[pieman123]

When fit id take Seedsman over Young

 

[iGNITER]

f

I think Frost will stay in and Reid will play forward. Langdon is having a terrific season but not sure he will hold his spot. I don't see Young as best 22 and not sure Ball will retain his spot. Also one of the rucks, Grundy at this stage, must be taken out. Seedman, Frost, Dwyer and Adams to come in.

Fair calls all around.

 

[ClaytonM]

I think to be at our best a number of players get pushed out of the top 22, namely: young, ball, blair and goldsack. Like 2010 when medhurst, lockyer and fraser where pushed aside, I hope the above four end up in the 2's because the next generation are coming through.

Seedsman for young
Adams for ball
Karnezis for goldy
Reid for blair

B - Maxwell Frost Toovey
HB - Williams Keefe Seedsman
C - Lumumba Beams Sidebottom
HF - Swan Cloke Karnezis
F - Elliott White Reid
R - Grundy Macaffer Pendlebury
INT - Adams Thomas Langdon
SUB - Fasolo

This would make us far more threatening up forward and with Reid able to swing in to defense if needed. I am not suggesting these changes are warranted at this stage, particularly given goldy and blairs performances against the Weagles, but I would like to see these replacement force their way in to the top team.

 

[MightyPies1]

Interesting looking at that first post and the list, and looking at the 2006 draft which we nailed, well thought we did I guess, but only a fringe player in Goldsack from that draft has gone on to play 100 games.

Reid (95)

Brown (93)

And then there's Brad Dick who was always injured. Dawes and Wellingham (92) who have been traded. Macaffer who will play 100 games. And then there is Clarke who clearly won't make it.

It was a very good draft though, and Wellingham and Dawes with the turnover affect has netted Kennedy and Broomhead.

 

[regrundies]

BEST 22
B: Alan Toovey (26, 114 games), Nathan Brown (25, 90 games), Nick Maxwell (30, 198 games)
HB: Marley Williams (20, 22 games), Lachlan Keeffe (23, 22 games), Clinton Young (27, 118 games)
C: Heritier Lumumba (27, 178 games), Dane Swan (29, 219 games), Steele Sidebottom (22, 108 games)
HF: Dayne Beams (23, 91 games), Travis Cloke (26, 196 games), Taylor Adams (20, 31 games)
F: Jamie Elliott (21, 35 games), Ben Reid (24, 95 games), Jesse White (25, 71 games)
Rucks: Brodie Grundy (19, 7 games), Scott Pendlebury (25, 171 games), Luke Ball (29, 206 games)
Interchange: Brent Macaffer (25, 52 games), Jarryd Blair (23, 81 games), Tyson Goldsack (26, 104 games), Josh Thomas (22, 19 games)

In: Frost Langdon
Out: Brown Thomas

At this stage, Hun wasn't far off without seeing what Seedsman Karnezis Broomhead Freeman and Sinclair can do in the 2nd half and assuming Reid replaces Witts

 

[Bard]

Interesting looking at that first post and the list, and looking at the 2006 draft which we nailed, well thought we did I guess, but only a fringe player in Goldsack from that draft has gone on to play 100 games.

Reid (95)

Brown (93)

And then there's Brad Dick who was always injured. Dawes and Wellingham (92) who have been traded. Macaffer who will play 100 games. And then there is Clarke who clearly won't make it.

It was a very good draft though, and Wellingham and Dawes with the turnover affect has netted Kennedy and Broomhead.

I don't get this. Because two talls haven't played 100 games yet, it diminishes the good recruiting? I don't think there's any doubting we got great return from that draft, including two key players in a premiership who we then traded for two top 20 picks, which is a vast improvement on what we spent on them in the first place.

 

[HappyRed]

Was thinking about this before with the loss of Brown for the season, thinking we need to have Reid down back.
Interesting to see what our best 22 will look like come finals.
One of Keeffe and Frost play at FB, had to toss a coin and Keeffe came up.

Langdon has been impressive down back and is reliable. He stays in the side.
Really like Fasolo in the 22 and think having him as a sub adds a bit of x-factor and flair. He can be a bit of a swing man and come on to cover a defender or forward.
He is the kind of player that can come on and kick 2 quick goals.

Having Lumumba and Young on each wing can be dangerous but add a bit of run and carry. Both are 50-60 meter players.

Macaffer has played tagger and done the role well against some super opposition, hopefully he gets a rest of sorts and is ready to go come finals and take down some of the quality teams number 1 midfielder.

A real issue is whether we play 2 pure ruckman or not. Depending on the opposition I guess horses for courses... In the below case I have the one ruckman in the side in Grundy with JT getting the nod. He adds a bit of grunt and clearance work but also has some pace. IMO is going to be a really good player for the club and at this stage is infront of Adams and Kennedy.

B - Maxwell Keeffe Toovey
HB - Williams Reid Langdon
C - Lumumba Beams Young
HF - Swan Cloke Sidebottom
F - Elliott White Goldsack
R - Grundy Macaffer Pendlebury
INT - Ball Blair Thomas
SUB - Fasolo

EMG - Witts Kennedy Dwyer Adams Seedsman Frost Sinclair (good depth)

Thoughts?

IMO Frost wins out over Keefe.

 

[iGNITER]

IMO Frost wins out over Keefe.

When I flipped the coin it was heads, thats why I chose Keeffe.
I really couldnt decide...