Competitions Collingwood All Time Draft

[Pie 4 Life]

I also expect you to cop copious stick for throwing back pocket specialist Tarkyn Lockyer to a half forward flank. Completely irresponsible

Honestly I don't need to be first, I'm happy to be 10th, as long as you're 11th I'm good with that

 

[half_back_flank]

Just guessing, but I suspect that is much more likely to refer to Bill Strickland. We'll find out soon enough!

Yep, I got that vibe too. Since a young kid i've always associated the two Bills (Proudfoot being the other) together, a bit more research would have shown they didn't quite play on the same line......

“Three big blokes across the one line” is also probably my full forwardline too .

 

[35Daicos]

Yep, I got that vibe too. Since a young kid i've always associated the two Bills (Proudfoot being the other) together, a bit more research would have shown they didn't quite play on the same line......

“Three big blokes across the one line” is also probably my full forwardline too .

I did look at that the other day and wondered if you might have been better off moving Bone to the forward pocket, and perhaps Ted Rowell to the last line of defence, though obviously he did star up forward as well. It would be interesting to know with regards to "big blokes" whether Michael is including players who weren't actually that tall, but usually/always played in a key position, or is it simply those who were considered tall/big for their era. It's probably the latter.

Having another look at the sides I think there might be a few others that are reasonable candidates as well, and perhaps this first one might even be more likely than yours!:
FF:



HB:

 

[South of the Yarra]

You picked a superb team. I did like the fact that everyone in your side had at least 50 games for the club. It would take a harsh critic to find any real holes in it!

Cheers mate. Most appreciated. Still nervous though.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I did look at that the other day and wondered if you might have been better off moving Bone to the forward pocket, and perhaps Ted Rowell to the last line of defence, though obviously he did star up forward as well. It would be interesting to know with regards to "big blokes" whether Michael is including players who weren't actually that tall, but usually/always played in a key position, or is it simply those who were considered tall/big for their era. It's probably the latter.

Having another look at the sides I think there might be a few others that are reasonable candidates as well, and perhaps this first one might even be more likely than yours!:
FF:
View attachment 1281749
View attachment 1281762

HB:
View attachment 1281767

View attachment 1281772

I agree with mine and would happily change Lockwood and Curtis if I could do a late change.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I did look at that the other day and wondered if you might have been better off moving Bone to the forward pocket, and perhaps Ted Rowell to the last line of defence, though obviously he did star up forward as well. It would be interesting to know with regards to "big blokes" whether Michael is including players who weren't actually that tall, but usually/always played in a key position, or is it simply those who were considered tall/big for their era. It's probably the latter.

Having another look at the sides I think there might be a few others that are reasonable candidates as well, and perhaps this first one might even be more likely than yours!:
FF:
View attachment 1281749
View attachment 1281762

HB:
View attachment 1281767

View attachment 1281772

My plan was to have Fothergill, Wearmouth and Libbis get in at their feet. Either that or pray for a dry September.

 

[raymond35]

Fully appreciate your comments Michael.
As i loaded up with champion defenders and midfielders all the gun forwards were already taken.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Just guessing, but I suspect that is much more likely to refer to Bill Strickland. We'll find out soon enough!

Yeah, I thought it might have been Bill Strickland as well. I suspect Michael's comment about a ruckman being put at half back is a reference to Minogue in my team, although Minogue did play a bit across half back according to Michael, so let's see.

 

[Lardieslads]

I did look at that the other day and wondered if you might have been better off moving Bone to the forward pocket, and perhaps Ted Rowell to the last line of defence, though obviously he did star up forward as well. It would be interesting to know with regards to "big blokes" whether Michael is including players who weren't actually that tall, but usually/always played in a key position, or is it simply those who were considered tall/big for their era. It's probably the latter.

Yes it's basically those who were considered big for their era. That half-back line you mentioned, for example - none of them were particularly big guys so I'm less concerned by that than by some other instances.

 

[Lardieslads]

Fully appreciate your comments Michael.
As i loaded up with champion defenders and midfielders all the gun forwards were already taken.

Thanks for understanding where I was coming from, Raymond! And yes, good centre half-forwards and full-forwards seem to have been much thinner on the ground than their defensive counterparts, so you had to get in early

 

[magpies42]

Thanks for understanding where I was coming from, Raymond! And yes, good centre half-forwards and full-forwards seem to have been much thinner on the ground than their defensive counterparts, so you had to get in early

One thing I learnt through this process is that we had more quality ruckman than I anticipated…this is partly why I took a ruck with my first pick!

I’ve walked away a much more rounder Collingwood supporter from this experience

 

[Tarkyn_24]

One thing I learnt through this process is that we had more quality ruckman than I anticipated…this is partly why I took a ruck with my first pick!

I’ve walked away a much more rounder Collingwood supporter from this experience

Yeah, had I produced any kind of depth list prior to the draft I think my selections would have taken shape very, very differently.

Had I known we had so many elite wingmen and rucks I wouldn’t have grabbed Millane or Grundy as early as I did.

 

[magpies42]

Yeah, had I produced any kind of depth list prior to the draft I think my selections would have taken shape very, very differently.

Had I known we had so many elite wingmen and rucks I wouldn’t have grabbed Millane or Grundy as early as I did.

Millane and Clement were the one I was particularly keen on, but anticipated they would go later

 

[Lardieslads]

OK, time for #2 ...
Jelly Bean
Backs: Bob Nash, Gary Pert; Mick Gayfer;
Half Back: Jack Monohan; Len Fitzgerald; Dan Minogue (C)
Centre: Dick Condon; Fred Leach; John Greening
Half Forward: Nick Davis; David Cloke; Charlie Pannam Sr
Forward: Andy Krakouer; Gordon Coventry; Frank Hailwood
Followers: Damian Monkhorst; Brianna Davey; Des Tuddenham (VC)

The good: Structurally really solid, with only one problematic line. Great centre and half-forward lines, with plenty of 1890s heroes (Condon, Leach and Pannam all personal favourites). Love Fitzgerald at CHB – he really could have been anything as a footballer if he’d stayed here (won three Magarey medals in SA after he left). Lots of leadership on offer too – Minogue and Tuddy were two of our great leaders, and Bob Nash was a rascal. Nick Davis and Charlie Pannam Snr playing alongside David Cloke looks really good, and choosing Gordon Coventry with your first pick was a smart move: immediately elevates any team. Good to see the long-forgotten Charger Hailwood in the pocket too. Monkey a good ruckman, and Johnny Greening a standout.

Question marks: Well, well, well – you’ve certainly thrown the cat amongst the proverbials here, haven’t you Mr Bean? The big Q in this team is obviously the ruck-rover spot: Bri Davey is in some ways an inspired call. But it also feels a bit cheeky, and it certainly makes the team very hard to judge overall! I’m still grappling with it, I have to admit.

The only non-Bri question mark is over the defence. I think it’s potentially a little slow, and the half-back line is unbalanced. Jack Monohan really was only a CHB – I don’t think he played on a HBF all that often. Whereas Fitzy could have played on a HBF (although a bit of a waste), or at CHF or as a ruck-rover. Ditto with Dan Minogue – he’s not really a flanker. Players who played as ‘followers’ in that time (think Dan, Con McCarthy, Doc Seddon etc) have proven very hard to categorise in these teams. They’re not big enough to be true ruckmen, and not mobile enough to be flankers or ruck-rovers. I see them mostly as a big back or forward pocket. So Dan is not really agile enough to play HBF regularly (my references to him playing across half-back, especially early in his career, were more about him playing centrally). All up that makes for a slow half-back line. When you then add in the back line, which isn’t exactly uber-quick itself, it makes the whole defence feel a little slow. I think the back half could sustain either Nash or Minogue but probably not both. There’s no back pocket or back flanker who is going to provide much dash out of the back half, to complement the dashing key position players you’ve got.

Best line: Condon-Leach-Greening. Thrilling centre line. I love the whole Fred Leach story and have always been fascinated by him. Dick Condon was a marvel of his time, and a player I would try to have got into my own team. And Greening was a star who would have become even better if he hadn’t been … well, you know.

Weakest link: Aside from the half-back line, I was also a bit surprised to see Andy Krakouer in there, given he really only gave us one good year. Sure, it was a bloody good year, but still ...

Player quality: Good (11 players from the top 125) Rating 7/10

Team balance: 8/10 – only the half-back line stops it from being higher.

Summary: A really good team that hangs together well and has plenty of star power, and a good representation of the deep past, which I admire. But it does have an unhelpfully slow defence. And I still have no idea how to rate a team with Bri Davey as ruck-rover! That has really thrown me

 

[76woodenspooners]

Question marks: Well, well, well – you’ve certainly thrown the cat amongst the proverbials here, haven’t you Mr Bean? The big Q in this team is obviously the ruck-rover spot: Bri Davey is in some ways an inspired call. But it also feels a bit cheeky, and it certainly makes the team very hard to judge overall! I’m still grappling with it, I have to admit.

My take …

… as AFLW League B&F co-winner, Collingwood AFLW B&F winner, and Collingwood co-Captain, just think of her as a mashup of Ollie Wines, Jack Crisp, and Scott Pendlebury

 

[magpies42]

OK, time for #2 ...
Jelly Bean
Backs: Bob Nash, Gary Pert; Mick Gayfer;
Half Back: Jack Monohan; Len Fitzgerald; Dan Minogue (C)
Centre: Dick Condon; Fred Leach; John Greening
Half Forward: Nick Davis; David Cloke; Charlie Pannam Sr
Forward: Andy Krakouer; Gordon Coventry; Frank Hailwood
Followers: Damian Monkhorst; Brianna Davey; Des Tuddenham (VC)

The good: Structurally really solid, with only one problematic line. Great centre and half-forward lines, with plenty of 1890s heroes (Condon, Leach and Pannam all personal favourites). Love Fitzgerald at CHB – he really could have been anything as a footballer if he’d stayed here (won three Magarey medals in SA after he left). Lots of leadership on offer too – Minogue and Tuddy were two of our great leaders, and Bob Nash was a rascal. Nick Davis and Charlie Pannam Snr playing alongside David Cloke looks really good, and choosing Gordon Coventry with your first pick was a smart move: immediately elevates any team. Good to see the long-forgotten Charger Hailwood in the pocket too. Monkey a good ruckman, and Johnny Greening a standout.

Question marks: Well, well, well – you’ve certainly thrown the cat amongst the proverbials here, haven’t you Mr Bean? The big Q in this team is obviously the ruck-rover spot: Bri Davey is in some ways an inspired call. But it also feels a bit cheeky, and it certainly makes the team very hard to judge overall! I’m still grappling with it, I have to admit.

The only non-Bri question mark is over the defence. I think it’s potentially a little slow, and the half-back line is unbalanced. Jack Monohan really was only a CHB – I don’t think he played on a HBF all that often. Whereas Fitzy could have played on a HBF (although a bit of a waste), or at CHF or as a ruck-rover. Ditto with Dan Minogue – he’s not really a flanker. Players who played as ‘followers’ in that time (think Dan, Con McCarthy, Doc Seddon etc) have proven very hard to categorise in these teams. They’re not big enough to be true ruckmen, and not mobile enough to be flankers or ruck-rovers. I see them mostly as a big back or forward pocket. So Dan is not really agile enough to play HBF regularly (my references to him playing across half-back, especially early in his career, were more about him playing centrally). All up that makes for a slow half-back line. When you then add in the back line, which isn’t exactly uber-quick itself, it makes the whole defence feel a little slow. I think the back half could sustain either Nash or Minogue but probably not both. There’s no back pocket or back flanker who is going to provide much dash out of the back half, to complement the dashing key position players you’ve got.

Best line: Condon-Leach-Greening. Thrilling centre line. I love the whole Fred Leach story and have always been fascinated by him. Dick Condon was a marvel of his time, and a player I would try to have got into my own team. And Greening was a star who would have become even better if he hadn’t been … well, you know.

Weakest link: Aside from the half-back line, I was also a bit surprised to see Andy Krakouer in there, given he really only gave us one good year. Sure, it was a bloody good year, but still ...

Player quality: Good (11 players from the top 125) Rating 7/10

Team balance: 8/10 – only the half-back line stops it from being higher.

Summary: A really good team that hangs together well and has plenty of star power, and a good representation of the deep past, which I admire. But it does have an unhelpfully slow defence. And I still have no idea how to rate a team with Bri Davey as ruck-rover! That has really thrown me

Haha, how did I miss the Briana Davey pick! Classic

 

[Jelly Bean]

OK, time for #2 ...
Jelly Bean
Backs: Bob Nash, Gary Pert; Mick Gayfer;
Half Back: Jack Monohan; Len Fitzgerald; Dan Minogue (C)
Centre: Dick Condon; Fred Leach; John Greening
Half Forward: Nick Davis; David Cloke; Charlie Pannam Sr
Forward: Andy Krakouer; Gordon Coventry; Frank Hailwood
Followers: Damian Monkhorst; Brianna Davey; Des Tuddenham (VC)

The good: Structurally really solid, with only one problematic line. Great centre and half-forward lines, with plenty of 1890s heroes (Condon, Leach and Pannam all personal favourites). Love Fitzgerald at CHB – he really could have been anything as a footballer if he’d stayed here (won three Magarey medals in SA after he left). Lots of leadership on offer too – Minogue and Tuddy were two of our great leaders, and Bob Nash was a rascal. Nick Davis and Charlie Pannam Snr playing alongside David Cloke looks really good, and choosing Gordon Coventry with your first pick was a smart move: immediately elevates any team. Good to see the long-forgotten Charger Hailwood in the pocket too. Monkey a good ruckman, and Johnny Greening a standout.

Question marks: Well, well, well – you’ve certainly thrown the cat amongst the proverbials here, haven’t you Mr Bean? The big Q in this team is obviously the ruck-rover spot: Bri Davey is in some ways an inspired call. But it also feels a bit cheeky, and it certainly makes the team very hard to judge overall! I’m still grappling with it, I have to admit.

The only non-Bri question mark is over the defence. I think it’s potentially a little slow, and the half-back line is unbalanced. Jack Monohan really was only a CHB – I don’t think he played on a HBF all that often. Whereas Fitzy could have played on a HBF (although a bit of a waste), or at CHF or as a ruck-rover. Ditto with Dan Minogue – he’s not really a flanker. Players who played as ‘followers’ in that time (think Dan, Con McCarthy, Doc Seddon etc) have proven very hard to categorise in these teams. They’re not big enough to be true ruckmen, and not mobile enough to be flankers or ruck-rovers. I see them mostly as a big back or forward pocket. So Dan is not really agile enough to play HBF regularly (my references to him playing across half-back, especially early in his career, were more about him playing centrally). All up that makes for a slow half-back line. When you then add in the back line, which isn’t exactly uber-quick itself, it makes the whole defence feel a little slow. I think the back half could sustain either Nash or Minogue but probably not both. There’s no back pocket or back flanker who is going to provide much dash out of the back half, to complement the dashing key position players you’ve got.

Best line: Condon-Leach-Greening. Thrilling centre line. I love the whole Fred Leach story and have always been fascinated by him. Dick Condon was a marvel of his time, and a player I would try to have got into my own team. And Greening was a star who would have become even better if he hadn’t been … well, you know.

Weakest link: Aside from the half-back line, I was also a bit surprised to see Andy Krakouer in there, given he really only gave us one good year. Sure, it was a bloody good year, but still ...

Player quality: Good (11 players from the top 125) Rating 7/10

Team balance: 8/10 – only the half-back line stops it from being higher.

Summary: A really good team that hangs together well and has plenty of star power, and a good representation of the deep past, which I admire. But it does have an unhelpfully slow defence. And I still have no idea how to rate a team with Bri Davey as ruck-rover! That has really thrown me

Great overview Michael!

Yeah, I agree - my backline is stacked with bigger KP types - it was more a function of picking a gem that I thought was undervalued and trying to find a slot. I have cast Monohan into a 'super-interceptor' role (e.g. Howe like), but I admit that is more my imagination than the reality of his abilities.

Bri is certainly the divisive selection in my team! . On how to judge, I guess it is as simple as whether you buy into the eligibility and the 'judge against their peers' interpretation I've made. If you do, then her resume is super strong (dual AA, AA captain, Collingwood captain, B&F winner, 'Brownlow' winner), if you don't then it is a gap in my team in a critical part of the ground. It was certainly a late decision from me as the target I had got picked off a few prior, but I think she is a worthy pick.

 

[McOrist]

Jelly Bean got my vote -on the basis that he selected my two favourite 'what coodabeen' players in Greening and Fitzgerald.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Lardieslads
Another brilliant summary

 

[South of the Yarra]

Talking about having links to the older players apparently when I was in Grade Two we were asked what we wanted to be when we grew up. Most kids answered Superman, Batman, Policeman, Nurse, Doctor, Fireman or Cowboy (probably politically incorrect now). My answer was Albert Collier.
We all Bleed Black and White.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Lardieslads
Another brilliant summary

Agree, your reviews are right on point Michael - thanks for taking the time!

 

[Black_White]

How the hell doesn’t McKenna get a look in?

 

[half_back_flank]

Anyone else want to take this one?

 

[magpies42]

Talking about having links to the older players apparently when I was in Grade Two we were asked what we wanted to be when we grew up. Most kids answered Superman, Batman, Policeman, Nurse, Doctor, Fireman or Cowboy (probably politically incorrect now). My answer was Albert Collier.
We all Bleed Black and White.

Sounds like a super hero by all reports, so you weren’t far off

 

[35Daicos]

How the hell doesn’t McKenna get a look in?

He did! Peter McKenna was the 8th player selected:

This was a 'draft', with 11 participants taking it in turn to make their selections and form a team (of 18). 198 players were chosen, and (like in a normal draft) nobody could be chosen more than once! Those who participated were not simply naming their best ever Collingwood sides.