Competitions Collingwood All Time Draft

Remove this Banner Ad

half_back_flank said:
Great call. I used to ride around to my grandparents place to read pops copy. Read it cover to cover multiple times, I was adamant it had to be willed to me since about age 10.
Click to expand...
It's definitely a brilliant book. I was lucky enough to track down a copy about 15 years after it was written along with Kill for Collingwood.

Another brilliant book by Michael and Glenn, that should be held in the same regard as those mentioned is The Machine. So good to read in depth reviews about those seasons but great fascinating stories of all players that played in those years too.

A definite must if you can get your hands on it.
 
Lardieslads said:
And now it's time for review #3 ...
South Of The Yarra
Backs: Harold Rumney, Jack Hamilton, Alf Dummett
Half Back: Denis Banks, Albert Collier, Shane Morwood
Centre: Graeme Wright, Des Fothergill, Bruce Abernethy
Half Forward: Bill Twomey Sr, Frank Murphy, Ted Lockwood
Forward: Harry Curtis, Brian Taylor, Mick Twomey
Followers: Darren Jolly, Ronnie Wearmouth, Billy Libbis

The good: Love the set-up of most of the team, with the vast majority of players being where they should be. Also plenty of quality individually, and I loved seeing Frank Murphy getting some credit. He’s a vastly underrated footballer and certainly one of the finest CHFs in our history (though he was, in modern terms, more a mobile lead-up forward than a clunking pack mark type player). Fother in the centre is a dream, and there’s plenty of pace and experience throughout.

Question marks: The forward line is too tall. Curtis, BT and Mick Twomey are all big blokes and the team sorely needs a small man there. You took Harry C at 130: take Percy Wilson instead (or Bone, Norman etc who followed later) and it’s just about a perfectly balanced team.

The only other super-nitpicking point is that we have two pure rovers (Wearmouth and Billy Libbis (oops!)) in the ruck division, rather than a rover and a ruck-rover. But Ronnie could probably handle the ruck-rover role anyway.

Best line: There’s a few to choose from here but I really like the half-back line. Tough as nails with Banks and Leeter, perfectly counterbalanced by Morph’s poise. Superb.

Weakest link: The top-heavy forward line. And leadership: incredibly, only one of the team ever captained Collingwood (Harry Curtis, for one year). That’s a stark contrast with some of the other teams selected here.

Player quality: Outstanding. 15 out of the 18 were in our 125, and Darren Jolly was one of the three others. Plus every player played at least 50 games – no one-season wonders here. 9/10

Team balance: 8/10 – forward line and Ronnie as ruck-rover the only issues

Summary: With a couple of minor exceptions, this is a really well balanced team in terms of selection, populated by 15 of the club’s best 125 players. So the individual quality is there, and few players have been played horribly out of position. And the three players chosen from outside the 125 are all perfect for their roles – Jolly in the ruck, Abernethy on the wing and Teddy Lockwood at half-forward. But the absence of on-field leaders is a negative, as is a too-tall forward line. Still, a bloody good team.
Click to expand...

Brilliant Michael. Thank you so much for taking the time. I was so happy with my team but you are spot on with the question marks. Love every part of your feedback. Thanks again mate.
 
magpies42 said:
I dunno, I picked players based on performances in big games as a criteria…the Weid is legendary from that perspective.
Click to expand...

Same here, chose a lot of players who knew how to win Flags. I think my team tallied 32 Premierships which was a big part of my selection.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

half_back_flank said:
As did I, hence Leon.

Seriously though, outside of Ball’s snap in the prelim, Leon having three very good finals was my favourite moment of the 2011 season. Banished a lot of demons, I’m so glad he got that chance before retirement.
Click to expand...
3 goals in as many minutes, amazing prelim. They were too scared too touch ball in fear of giving away a free I felt. 2011 should have been ours after Pods went down, damn Mick and his stubborn ways.
 
South of the Yarra said:
Same here, chose a lot of players who knew how to win Flags. I think my team tallied 32 Premierships which was a big part of my selection.
Click to expand...
Now you know the history and player qualities better than I ever will but I feel like Weidemens heroics to lead us to a premiership against the toughest of odds is something that is underrated. Not all premierships are equal and as we know winning them as favourites or otherwise is tough for Collingwood, but I still think player performances to drag a team across the line against the odds is something unique. I’m sure we have many other players in that category, but Weids is the one I’ve heard before.
 
magpies42 said:
Now you know the history and player qualities better than I ever will but I feel like Weidemens heroics to lead us to a premiership against the toughest of odds is something that is underrated. Not all premierships are equal and as we know winning them as favourites or otherwise is tough for Collingwood, but I still think player performances to drag a team across the line against the odds is something unique. I’m sure we have many other players in that category, but Weids is the one I’ve heard before.
Click to expand...

It was a remarkable effort and the 58 Premiership is Collingwood Royalty. Even better that we protected our 4 in a row.
 
Lardieslads said:
That's a darned good question, and the answer has changed a bit over time.
In footy's earliest days, pretty much everyone on the ball was sometimes (but not always) referred to as 'followers' or even being 'in the ruck'. By the early 1900s/1910s, there became a distinction between ruckmen, rovers and another big guy, usually called a follower or a shepherder, whose job it was to clear a path for the ruckman (guys like Dan Minogue, George Angus, Doc Seddon, Con McCarthy etc used to perform this role, often for a genuine tall like Les Hughes). But then shepherding was outlawed and the position of follower kind of died out.
Somewhere around either the 1930s or the 1950s, depending on who you believe, the position of ruck-rover came into being. This was a bloke who was usually considerably smaller than the followers had been, but still bigger than the pure rovers. At one level (with guys like Percy Bowyer) it was just to provide greater mobility around the ball (remember, for most of these periods, centremen tended to stay at home in the middle and not stray far), but in some other set-ups (such as with Hooker Harrison in the 1950s), the position was designed to get first hands on the ball from the ruck and farm it out to the rover running wide. By the 1960s it had usually just become a slightly bigger bodied midfielder. So Wayne Richardson was a pure rover. Tuddy was more a ruck-rover. As was Max R. By the late 70s it was guys like Ohlsen and Byrne and Morris, while the roving was handled by Wearmouth and Ray Shaw.
But over time, as the game has become more fluid and everyone moves all the time, the notion of a separate rover and ruck-rover gradually died out. But I still like seeing footy teams selected that way - it's a nice little blast from the past!
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
magpies42 said:
Now you know the history and player qualities better than I ever will but I feel like Weidemens heroics to lead us to a premiership against the toughest of odds is something that is underrated. Not all premierships are equal and as we know winning them as favourites or otherwise is tough for Collingwood, but I still think player performances to drag a team across the line against the odds is something unique. I’m sure we have many other players in that category, but Weids is the one I’ve heard before.
Click to expand...
One of the great things about this is delving into details more also. What I wasn't aware of was the efforts of our backline to repel Melb in that game. Reeves and Sullivan (I believe) were accredited as being instrumental in holding them off in that last quarter. We only kicked 2 pts for the term so the ball must have lived in our backline a bit.

I'd always heard of Weid and Hooker Harrison, but not so much about our backline's efforts in that game.
 
Trickster said:
One of the great things about this is delving into details more also. What I wasn't aware of was the efforts of our backline to repel Melb in that game. Reeves and Sullivan (I believe) were accredited as being instrumental in holding them off in that last quarter. We only kicked 2 pts for the term so the ball must have lived in our backline a bit.

I'd always heard of Weid and Hooker Harrison, but not so much about our backline's efforts in that game.
Click to expand...
For sure, to pull that off it’s a team effort! Similar to our 2002 exploits, less umpire intervention.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And here's #4 ...
Tarkyn 24
Backs: Brayden Maynard, Nathan Brown, Heritier Lumumba
Half Back: Heath Shaw, Shane Wakelin, Peter Lucas
Centre: Ken Turner, Brian Gray, Darren Millane
Half Forward: Dale Thomas, Dermott Brereton, Alby Pannam
Forward: Peter Daicos, Chris Tarrant, Dave Norman
Followers: Brodie Grundy, Luke Ball, Ads Treloar

The good: Any team that includes Daicos, Taz, Alby Pannam, Dale Thomas and Millane is going to be pretty ace to watch! Obviously a team with a greater focus on the recent years, with only one player from the pre-WW2 period. But then you go and pick Dave Norman for a forward pocket – and he is one of the canniest left-field selections of the draft: very good and underrated rover/pocket, who twice kicked six in a game. Most of his teammates say both he and Mick Bone should have played more. But it’s even better because there is bugger all about him on Forever (I’m in the process of trying to write something now) so it’s a particularly good get.

Question marks: Brian Gray was much more a wingman than a centreman at VFL level. And I think Dermott’s days as a gun CHF were well behind him by the time he got to CFC.

Best line: The rucking division is first class, but for sheer thrills it would have to be the forward line – plenty of goals and highlights in that trio.

Weakest link: It’s probably Dermott at CHF, harsh as that is. The year he spent here he was more of a forward pocket, shielding Sav, and although he played a useful role he was well past his best. And Brian Gray, as good as he was, doesn’t look as good as most of the other centremen that have been chosen. And like SOTY, there seems to be only one player who ever captained the team (Alby), which isn’t ideal.

Player quality: Reasonable. Only 7 players from the 125, but few where you'd really think 'seriously???'. Plus Grundy would also have been in that crew if the book was published a few years later, and Ads and Maynard would be pushing too. 6.5-7/10

Team balance: Very good. 7.5/10. Gray and Dermie the only real question marks.

Summary: A nicely balanced team, with most players chosen in their best spots (Gray aside). Thomas, Pannam, Daicos and Taz are brilliant to have in the front half, especially with Millane just behind them, and the ruck division is strong. But having weaknesses in the important positions of centre and at CHF hurts, and the back line is solid rather than spectacular.
 
Thanks for the feedback Lardieslads - I’d alluded to my own struggles filling centre and centre half forward relative to the surplus of riches in other positions. I can definitely understand Dermott raising eyebrows. I’m intrigued as to which direction you’d have gone with the player pool remaining as I didn’t find any player that really fit my need (my forward structure with an inflexible Tarrant really challenged me, my own doing and fault for how I’d prioritised my selections of course). :D

Very much appreciate the time and thought you’ve taken to review the team, and more broadly, your enthusiasm for eleven mugs having a bit of fun and picking their own teams
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
Thanks for the feedback Lardieslads - I’d alluded to my own struggles filling centre and centre half forward relative to the surplus of riches in other positions. I can definitely understand Dermott raising eyebrows. I’m intrigued as to which direction you’d have gone with the player pool remaining as I didn’t find any player that really fit my need (my forward structure with an inflexible Tarrant really challenged me, my own doing and fault for how I’d prioritised my selections of course). :D

Very much appreciate the time and thought you’ve taken to review the team, and more broadly, your enthusiasm for eleven mugs having a bit of fun and picking their own teams
Click to expand...
Yes, it wasn't so much who you chose with the selections but the prioritisation before you got there. So your last three picks were to take a FB, centre and CHF. I would definitely have been making sure to have most of those nailed down well before the last three picks. Full-back is a bit different, because we seem to have oodles of those. So you got a perfectly decent option in NB, and could have had multiple others besides (Sullivan, Clifton, McCormack etc). Instead of choosing Gray in the centre I would have taken Charlie Pannam Jnr, who ended up slipping all the way into the 180s i think, which is crazy. He could really play. And as for CHF, you're right that there were few options around by the time you picked Dermie. Maybe Craig Stewart? But the main thing would have been to pick your CHF earlier when there were still decent options available. Sure that might have meant having to hold off on choosing a half-back flanker or something, but far better having to be choosing one of those with your last pick than a CHF!
 
Lardieslads said:
Yes, it wasn't so much who you chose with the selections but the prioritisation before you got there. So your last three picks were to take a FB, centre and CHF. I would definitely have been making sure to have most of those nailed down well before the last three picks. Full-back is a bit different, because we seem to have oodles of those. So you got a perfectly decent option in NB, and could have had multiple others besides (Sullivan, Clifton, McCormack etc). Instead of choosing Gray in the centre I would have taken Charlie Pannam Jnr, who ended up slipping all the way into the 180s i think, which is crazy. He could really play. And as for CHF, you're right that there were few options around by the time you picked Dermie. Maybe Craig Stewart? But the main thing would have been to pick your CHF earlier when there were still decent options available. Sure that might have meant having to hold off on choosing a half-back flanker or something, but far better having to be choosing one of those with your last pick than a CHF!
Click to expand...
Yeah absolutely. I alluded to as much through the process, I was killed by my lack of foresight and planning - I didn’t realise the abundance of riches we had in the form of flankers, wings etc until about midway through the draft when I realised how much depth those positions continued to possess. At the end of the day selecting Tarrant as early as I did (with the intention of him being flexible between the full forward and full back/back pocket positions) ended up constraining me with how the remainder of the draft went, because as a forward he really was only selectable in my view as a full forward (or at a stretch, a flanker) which consigned me to not selecting another KPF that was only capable of holding their own at full forward. My biggest regret was jumping on Turner as early as I did, as was probably my selection of Wakelin and non selection of McCarthy at that same juncture. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome in CHF stocks as I alluded to when I actually made that pick but structurally it did have an impact as there were other options I’d considered earlier like Dunne etc that had my selections been structured differently I may have had more confidence pulling the trigger.

Very much appreciate the feedback though and your willingness to discuss your critiques Michael, what you’re doing for us is any Collingwood fanatic’s dream and we’re all very appreciative.
 
And now it's Trickster's turn ...
Trickster
Backs: Ron Reeves, Charlie Dibbs, Percy Bower
Half Back: Len Murphy, Ron Kingston, Jock McHale
Centre: Robert Dean, Jack Beveridge, Percy Gibb
Half Forward: Bob Makeham, Phonse Kyne, Alan Didak
Forward: Josh Fraser, Craig Davis, Horrie Edmonds
Followers: Les Hughes, Nathan Buckley, Percy Wilson

The good: Plenty of good players in this line-up, and great leaders (Buckley, Kyne, McHale). Some good specialist role players have been selected (Reeves, Gibb, Davis, Dean), and a left-field option in ‘Tubby’ Edmonds. A wonderful on-ball division, and a great centreman in Jack Beveridge – all class.

Question marks: The forward line. Makeham, even though he was often named on a HFF, was actually a very tall man. So are Fraser and Kyne. ‘Tubby’ was clever but not quick. And Craig Davis, though a clever choice after most of the gun FFs had gone, was also not particularly quick. Dids is a great selection, of course, but I just worry about the lack of mobility in the rest of the forward line.

A similar situation presents at half-back, where Len Murphy was probably too big to play a flank effectively. He’s taller than Kingo at CHB, I think! But the two of those could have swapped anyway without upsetting things too much.

Best line: The rucks. Les Hughes was a champion of his day and a wonderful tap ruckman. Bucks is, well, Bucks. And Percy Wilson was a great rover who loved working in tandem with Hughes.

Weakest link: While I’m not crazy about Makeham at half-forward or Len Murphy on a back flank, I think the weakest link might be the absence of a true second rover. Tubby was a brave choice, but I suspect a goalkicking second rover might have given better balance.

Player quality: Excellent. 12 of the 18 were chosen in our 125 (equal third highest). And those who came from outside that 12 included specialists like Gibb (who should have been in my original choice of 100 for ACOTB) or guys who were unlucky to miss out (Fraser). 8/10

Team balance: 7.5/10. The absence of a second rover/small forward unbalances the line-up, as does the presence of oversized blokes at half-forward and half-back.

Summary: This is a very good team with good defenders and a wonderful on-ball/midfield, but which somehow doesn’t quite click in the forward line as much as it should. Kyne and Didak are great choices, but the rest don’t feel quite like they fit together for me. Maybe only one of Makeham and Fraser were needed there?
 
Lardieslads said:
And now it's Trickster's turn ...
Trickster
Backs: Ron Reeves, Charlie Dibbs, Percy Bower
Half Back: Len Murphy, Ron Kingston, Jock McHale
Centre: Robert Dean, Jack Beveridge, Percy Gibb
Half Forward: Bob Makeham, Phonse Kyne, Alan Didak
Forward: Josh Fraser, Craig Davis, Horrie Edmonds
Followers: Les Hughes, Nathan Buckley, Percy Wilson

The good: Plenty of good players in this line-up, and great leaders (Buckley, Kyne, McHale). Some good specialist role players have been selected (Reeves, Gibb, Davis, Dean), and a left-field option in ‘Tubby’ Edmonds. A wonderful on-ball division, and a great centreman in Jack Beveridge – all class.

Question marks: The forward line. Makeham, even though he was often named on a HFF, was actually a very tall man. So are Fraser and Kyne. ‘Tubby’ was clever but not quick. And Craig Davis, though a clever choice after most of the gun FFs had gone, was also not particularly quick. Dids is a great selection, of course, but I just worry about the lack of mobility in the rest of the forward line.

A similar situation presents at half-back, where Len Murphy was probably too big to play a flank effectively. He’s taller than Kingo at CHB, I think! But the two of those could have swapped anyway without upsetting things too much.

Best line: The rucks. Les Hughes was a champion of his day and a wonderful tap ruckman. Bucks is, well, Bucks. And Percy Wilson was a great rover who loved working in tandem with Hughes.

Weakest link: While I’m not crazy about Makeham at half-forward or Len Murphy on a back flank, I think the weakest link might be the absence of a true second rover. Tubby was a brave choice, but I suspect a goalkicking second rover might have given better balance.

Player quality: Excellent. 12 of the 18 were chosen in our 125 (equal third highest). And those who came from outside that 12 included specialists like Gibb (who should have been in my original choice of 100 for ACOTB) or guys who were unlucky to miss out (Fraser). 8/10

Team balance: 7.5/10. The absence of a second rover/small forward unbalances the line-up, as does the presence of oversized blokes at half-forward and half-back.

Summary: This is a very good team with good defenders and a wonderful on-ball/midfield, but which somehow doesn’t quite click in the forward line as much as it should. Kyne and Didak are great choices, but the rest don’t feel quite like they fit together for me. Maybe only one of Makeham and Fraser were needed there?
Click to expand...
Thanks Michael, I appreciate and value the feedback!

It's a valid point on a second rover. To be honest, without a bench I hadn't really felt the need to bring in a second rover though its something in hindsight I should have considered. Missing out on a premium key full forward - I wasn't expecting 4 of our best FFs (then Daicos also) to go by Pick 16 plus Alby got taken just before my 5th round pick - I was trying to get in some players who could hit the scoreboard to beef up that area. I was running out of options late and it was why I went for Edmonds with a late-ish pick. His goal per game ratio and performance in the 29 GF got the nod from me.

Overall, I would be banking on the supply and ball use of the mids to hit the fwds on the chest :) ).

And on Makeham, I didn't realise how tall he actually was until I was reading the Machine again a few days ago and saw a photo of him hovering above some of his teammates so that was surprising. Seeing him named on a flank online in the 29/30 GFs, I thought he was a bit shorter and more mobile than he might have been. I wanted him in though given his performance in big games at that time (it was a factor in my selections).

If I had realised Makeham might have been good enough to pinch hit in the ruck, I would have gone for a smaller player in place of Fraser, who I think I probably chose too high on reflection anyhow. A 3 tall / 3 small fwd line was what I thought I was putting on the park but agree its not as balanced as I'd like.

The other constant selection dilemma (for all no doubt) was choosing the best available player vs best available by position. Eg I shuffled McHale to a HBF to bring in Beveridge whereas I could have chosen a great re-bounding defender had I left McHale in the middle which may had worked better from a balance perspective.

And if I started again I probably would have gone a premium FF with my first pick. Would have been easier assembling the team around say a McKenna, Lee or Todd than trying to construct a forward line after these elite had gone.

Thank you once again Michael, appreciate your analysis and team summary :)
 
Trickster said:
Thanks Michael, I appreciate and value the feedback!

It's a valid point on a second rover. To be honest, without a bench I hadn't really felt the need to bring in a second rover though its something in hindsight I should have considered. Missing out on a premium key full forward - I wasn't expecting 4 of our best FFs (then Daicos also) to go by Pick 16 plus Alby got taken just before my 5th round pick - I was trying to get in some players who could hit the scoreboard to beef up that area. I was running out of options late and it was why I went for Edmonds with a late-ish pick. His goal per game ratio and performance in the 29 GF got the nod from me.

Overall, I would be banking on the supply and ball use of the mids to hit the fwds on the chest :) ).

And on Makeham, I didn't realise how tall he actually was until I was reading the Machine again a few days ago and saw a photo of him hovering above some of his teammates so that was surprising. Seeing him named on a flank online in the 29/30 GFs, I thought he was a bit shorter and more mobile than he might have been. I wanted him in though given his performance in big games at that time (it was a factor in my selections).

If I had realised Makeham might have been good enough to pinch hit in the ruck, I would have gone for a smaller player in place of Fraser, who I think I probably chose too high on reflection anyhow. A 3 tall / 3 small fwd line was what I thought I was putting on the park but agree its not as balanced as I'd like.

The other constant selection dilemma (for all no doubt) was choosing the best available player vs best available by position. Eg I shuffled McHale to a HBF to bring in Beveridge whereas I could have chosen a great re-bounding defender had I left McHale in the middle which may had worked better from a balance perspective.

And if I started again I probably would have gone a premium FF with my first pick. Would have been easier assembling the team around say a McKenna, Lee or Todd than trying to construct a forward line after these elite had gone.

Thank you once again Michael, appreciate your analysis and team summary :)
Click to expand...
I actually think shifting McHale back to a HBF was a reasonable move when Beveridge was still there - I perhaps then would have gone for more of a rebounding defender on the other flank (someone like an Ernie Wilson) instead of Len Murphy.
But you're right - that constant battle between best available and biggest need must have been frustrating for everyone! I know what you're saying about the sense in drafting a gun FF early, but how hard would it be to leave Bucks or Bobby Rose or the Colliers on the table in order to do so? That's partly why I'm so impressed with what people have done in pulling these sides together - it's a really tricky balancing act!
 
Lardieslads said:
I actually think shifting McHale back to a HBF was a reasonable move when Beveridge was still there - I perhaps then would have gone for more of a rebounding defender on the other flank (someone like an Ernie Wilson) instead of Len Murphy.
But you're right - that constant battle between best available and biggest need must have been frustrating for everyone! I know what you're saying about the sense in drafting a gun FF early, but how hard would it be to leave Bucks or Bobby Rose or the Colliers on the table in order to do so? That's partly why I'm so impressed with what people have done in pulling these sides together - it's a really tricky balancing act!
Click to expand...
I did have Ernie on my list but I should have grabbed him earlier. I think I was seduced by Len Murphy and the fact he broke straight into a Premiership team and played in 3 in his first 3 years. That and the fact that he added toughness to the team but also good enough to play for the Vics.

And you're right leaving a Buckley or Rose was very difficult in that first pick and that's ultimately why I chose Bucks with Pick 5 - I couldn't leave him on the table. I thought both he and Rose would have gone by then and I was tossing between those 2 and Syd.

It was such an enjoyable exercise though (I felt fortunate in the end to have taken part) and made even better by the interaction of all players and posters in general, culminating in your involvement and analysis too! It's been unreal so thanks once again!
 
Trickster said:
I did have Ernie on my list but I should have grabbed him earlier. I think I was seduced by Len Murphy and the fact he broke straight into a Premiership team and played in 3 in his first 3 years. That and the fact that he added toughness to the team but also good enough to play for the Vics.

And you're right leaving a Buckley or Rose was very difficult in that first pick and that's ultimately why I chose Bucks with Pick 5 - I couldn't leave him on the table. I thought both he and Rose would have gone by then and I was tossing between those 2 and Syd.

It was such an enjoyable exercise though (I felt fortunate in the end to have taken part) and made even better by the interaction of all players and posters in general, culminating in your involvement and analysis too! It's been unreal so thanks once again!
Click to expand...
Bucks from full forward. That game against Brissy in 2006 is all the evidence we need.

Or at centre half back, for all the baths he gave Carey,

Bloke was a machine.

I loved your team Trickster. Hated drafting after you every second round though :p
 
Trickster said:
I did have Ernie on my list but I should have grabbed him earlier. I think I was seduced by Len Murphy and the fact he broke straight into a Premiership team and played in 3 in his first 3 years. That and the fact that he added toughness to the team but also good enough to play for the Vics.

And you're right leaving a Buckley or Rose was very difficult in that first pick and that's ultimately why I chose Bucks with Pick 5 - I couldn't leave him on the table. I thought both he and Rose would have gone by then and I was tossing between those 2 and Syd.

It was such an enjoyable exercise though (I felt fortunate in the end to have taken part) and made even better by the interaction of all players and posters in general, culminating in your involvement and analysis too! It's been unreal so thanks once again!
Click to expand...
Absolutely my pleasure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Player Watch All time Pendlebury records watch
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
9K
jmac70
jmac70
magpielicious
Time Sniper is reported and suspended.
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
5K
The Royal Sampler
The Royal Sampler
TradeDraft
List Mgmt. 2024 Mid Season Draft
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
4K
jmac70
jmac70
76woodenspooners
Analysis A journey back in time to 1 Sept 2021
Replies
13
Views
822
Pleasedontfail11
Pleasedontfail11
PonsfordMagpie
Toast Round 4 = Collingwood 77-72 Hawthorn
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
618
Views
14K
sideswipe
sideswipe
Jen2310
List Mgmt. 2024 Draft Class
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Soups
Soups
Apples
Didaka Award: Rnd 4 - Collingwood V Hawthorn
Replies
22
Views
381
Mollythedolly
Mollythedolly

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top