Competitions Collingwood All Time Draft

Remove this Banner Ad

T
Lardieslads said:
So last night seemed to go OK (although I still couldn't help but torment myself about what might have been possible had we held on to our first pick), and in our own little version we're now down to the last couple...
Cityslick1
Backs: Isaac Quaynor, Jack Regan, Mal Michael
Half Back: Ray Byrne, Darcy Moore, Bob Rush
Centre: Geoff Raines, Scott Pendlebury, Eddie Drohan
Half Forward: Mike Richardson, Bill Twomey Jr, Ian Graham
Forward: Trevor Steer, Jordan De Goey, Archie Smith
Followers: Wes Fellowes, Dayne Beams, Thorold Merrett

The good: Some good individual talent here, with established champs like Regan and Merrett joined by more modern heroes like Pendles and Darcy Moore. Also great to see Archie Smith get some long overdue recognition for his amazing goalkicking feats in the club’s earliest days. Trevor Steer and Ian Graham are also very good gets in the forward line.

Question marks: There’s a few. Too early for IQ in one back pocket? Did Mal Michael do enough in his time here? (maybe) I don’t think Geoff Raines’ output as a Magpie was good enough to get him a spot. Wes Fellowes had one great year but otherwise lacked the rucking credentials of many of his rivals. And I’m not convinced Bill Twomey spent much time at CHF. He could play centre, wing and spent some very productive afternoons at FF, but I’m not sure he played CHF all that often.

Best line: If it was Richmond-era Raines then the centre line would have been awesome! But as it is I’ll go with the forward line, just because I like Trevor, and I’m chuffed to see Archie in there. JDG is a good option at FF but Ian Graham would have worked there just as well, if not better.

Weakest link: Much as I like him, I don’t think IQ has done enough to warrant a guernsey just yet. Hopefully time proves it a prescient selection! But not now.

Player quality: Not great. Only five of the team were in our 125 greatest, although recent additions Moore and JDG may one day go close. 6/10

Team balance: Backs, centre line and rucks are all good. But forward line is a bit free-form, with Bill Twomey at CHF and Ian Graham on a flank. Still pretty good overall. 7/10

Summary: The main problem here is simply the quality of the players in the team. It has about half the number of what would be considered an average number of top shelf players. And while some of the others are undoubtedly very good players (think Beams, Graham, Drohan, Smith, Steer), they actually outnumber the more established names to such an extent that the team simply doesn’t have the individual quality of some of the others. Sorry!
Click to expand...
Thanks Michael, I expected as much, and paid the price of going for favorites and not using the best 125 as a base for selections. I would request a friendly audit though, as I don’t know how Beams missed out, or Archie smith… or even Eddie drohan. Beams averaged over 30 possessions in an AA and B+F year. That’s swan, pendles and bucks territory. Moore is a star, so could / should end up in the clubs best 25 of all time… and I’d take De Goey over Ben Johnson any day of the week. (For the latter couple I Know the list was done in 2017)
Was also hoping for some leadership points, which you focused on in earlier reviews, after selecting Regan, Pendles and Rush.
Raines still won AA whilst with the pies, as did Mike Richardson - who averaged 2 goals a game.
Twomey I had to pick as a key forward, after kicking bags of 9 and 11 goals. And he could roost the ball. Knowing he could also play centre / wing, I pictured a mobile CHF in the Stringer / Richo mould.

Was great to learn about the old guard though… really enjoyed the research I was able to squeeze in. Caused some stressful / sleepless nights though….

floreat pica
 
cityslick1 said:
T

Thanks Michael, I expected as much, and paid the price of going for favorites and not using the best 125 as a base for selections. I would request a friendly audit though, as I don’t know how Beams missed out, or Archie smith… or even Eddie drohan. Beams averaged over 30 possessions in an AA and B+F year. That’s swan, pendles and bucks territory. Moore is a star, so could / should end up in the clubs best 25 of all time… and I’d take De Goey over Ben Johnson any day of the week. (For the latter couple I Know the list was done in 2017)
Was also hoping for some leadership points, which you focused on in earlier reviews, after selecting Regan, Pendles and Rush.
Raines still won AA whilst with the pies, as did Mike Richardson - who averaged 2 goals a game.
Twomey I had to pick as a key forward, after kicking bags of 9 and 11 goals. And he could roost the ball. Knowing he could also play centre / wing, I pictured a mobile CHF in the Stringer / Richo mould.

Was great to learn about the old guard though… really enjoyed the research I was able to squeeze in. Caused some stressful / sleepless nights though….

floreat pica
Click to expand...
If Moore ends up in our top 25 of all time that would be a pretty awesome career
 

Log in to remove this ad.

cityslick1 said:
T

Thanks Michael, I expected as much, and paid the price of going for favorites and not using the best 125 as a base for selections. I would request a friendly audit though, as I don’t know how Beams missed out, or Archie smith… or even Eddie drohan. Beams averaged over 30 possessions in an AA and B+F year. That’s swan, pendles and bucks territory. Moore is a star, so could / should end up in the clubs best 25 of all time… and I’d take De Goey over Ben Johnson any day of the week. (For the latter couple I Know the list was done in 2017)
Was also hoping for some leadership points, which you focused on in earlier reviews, after selecting Regan, Pendles and Rush.
Raines still won AA whilst with the pies, as did Mike Richardson - who averaged 2 goals a game.
Twomey I had to pick as a key forward, after kicking bags of 9 and 11 goals. And he could roost the ball. Knowing he could also play centre / wing, I pictured a mobile CHF in the Stringer / Richo mould.

Was great to learn about the old guard though… really enjoyed the research I was able to squeeze in. Caused some stressful / sleepless nights though….

floreat pica
Click to expand...
Yep, there's a mixture of things at play here, but I'll do my best to work through them.

JDG and Darcy really weren't in consideration in 2016 (which was when the 2017 book was started), and even now any inclusion of JDG would be based more on promise than output. Darcy almost the same. Both could definitely be there in time. Beams was extremely unlucky, for sure. But part of the problem we faced with the 2017 edition was that it was determined that we couldn't drop anyone from ACOTB in 1992. And as I've explained earlier in the thread, there were half a dozen or so in ACOTB whose presence owed more to their overall club contribution as to their on-field exploits (names like Sharp, Andrew, Stackpole, Woods etc). Without that constraint, the original ACOTB would have contained several different names. Archie Smith is my biggest regret from the first book: he should have been there but I don't think even I fully appreciated the extent of his achievements back then. I don't reckon I fought hard enough for him. There are a handful of others who also could have been worthy inclusions - and Drohan would have been one of those. Plus when putting together the first book, we always had to be conscious of having a spread from all eras, which was another factor to consider. In short, choosing that first 100 was monstrously tricky, and made harder by the inclusion of a handful of guys who were more than just footballers.

All of that means that, when deciding who to include in the new edition, we weren't comparing them to any of the existing 100, but to their fellow post-1990 inclusions. So if Beams was to be included, it would have to have been at the expense of one of the 'new' ones - and when you look at things that way, the exercise becomes a lot harder. Who would miss out? I know you said you'd take JDG over Benny Johnson "any day of the week", but as things stood when the book was put together, i'd respectfully disagree. In fact, I'd still disagree as things stand today. I don't think JDG has done enough yet to displace someone like BJ. But that could just be me. It's also worth noting that most of the decisions about the new guys were made by a group (of which I was a part), and I also think DB might have suffered a bit there because he had only recently departed for Brisbane and there might still have been some bad feelings about that.

As for the other issues you queried, Raines had one good year at CFC but still played fewer than 50 games. I placed a bit of a premium on longevity of service to CFC where I could. I thought Richardson on a HFF was a very good get (and don't think I queried him?) And while Bill Twomey had a couple of big days out at FF, (a) they were very occasional, and when he was tried there permanently it didn't really work out, and (b) the fact that he worked occasionally at FF doesn't mean he was a good selection for CHF, even if you wanted him to play that role as more of a hit-up forward (does Jake play there that often himself? I really couldn't tell you)

And as for leadership, it was kind of a given that any team would have at least one experienced captain in it. Yours had three, which was great (Rush never captained the team, though Bill Twomey Jnr did), but plenty of teams had that or more. But the only ones I really commented on were either (a) those that had an inordinate number, such as Gouki's, with four in defence and seven overall, or (b) conversely, those that had none or almost none, which the absence was more noticeable than the presence.

Anyway, that's a bit more background for you on how both books/lists were put together. If I were starting a top 125 now, with absolutely no constraints, then yes, it would probably look a bit different from the 2017 list. But that's not the way it's all come together! Hope that helps a bit ...
 
And now to the last one! Thanks to all for your patience. I'll post my grand final teams tomorrow, with any luck.
Gouki88
Backs: John Henderson, James Clement, Gordon Hocking
Half Back: Nick Maxwell, Ted Potter, Frank Tuck
Centre: Charlie Pannam Jnr, Scott Russell, Tom Drummond
Half Forward: Doug Barwick, Saverio Rocca, Mal Seddon
Forward: Paul Medhurst, Ian Brewer, J Pimm
Followers: Ray Gabelich, Harry Collier, Dane Swan

The good: Much to like here. Some real talent in defence, with leadership from four skippers in the back half alone (and seven overall!). I don’t think many forward lines would have the better of Maxy, Teddy Potter and Frank Tuck across half-back. The on-ballers are elite (although I think Scott Russell spent a lot more time as ruck-rover/rover/wing than in the centre), and I still can’t believe that Charlie Pannam Jnr slipped all the way to #187!! To me he was just about the steal of the draft (though I might have played him in the centre)

Question marks: Having taken Sav Rocca with a relatively early pick, I’m not sure I then would have played him at centre half-forward! The forward line is a bit unbalanced as a result. The back line also lacks a bit of pace for mine – Maxy, Potter and Tuck are all quite similar players in a lot of ways, and Clement too. Henderson was good but not especially quick and Hocking is the tall/ruck type, so the group lacks at least one small/quick defender in my view.

Best line: That following division! I’m imagining a prime career Gabbo (when he was built like a Greek god), with Harry Collier and Dane Swan. That is just about the best following trio that’s been chosen.

Weakest link: The forward line. Barwick and Medders are good choices for flank and pocket, but we’ve then got three full-forwards and a follower in the rest of the front half. Pimm and Brewer were both good players, but not of Sav’s class, and it feels a bit like robbing Daicos to pay Medhurst to shift Sav out of the goalsquare for either of them. Mal Seddon was also a big bloke, a follower, and so not really suited to a forward flank – certainly not going to get much pace out of him!

Player quality: Slightly above average (12 from 125) Rating 7.5/10

Team balance: Pretty good, though the forward line perhaps less so. 7/10

Summary: Some great pick-ups, and a couple of brilliant lines, but the forward line doesn’t hang together as well as the rest of the line-up, with four big blokes there. If Sav had stayed at FF, and you could have found an alternative for CHF, then I reckon that might have worked a bit better. A smaller or quicker flanker/pocket in defence might have been handy too.
 
If we’re querying 125 from 125 - I’m interested in your thoughts on Tarkyn Lockyer Lardieslads . I believe four top five placings in the Copeland (and to be brutally honest was robbed of the win in 2007) would’ve had to have had him in the frame, surely?

I think comparing he and Ben Johnson there really isn’t a lot between them in their careers, with Tarks better early and Johnson probably having slightly more longevity.
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
If we’re querying 125 from 125 - I’m interested in your thoughts on Tarkyn Lockyer Lardieslads . I believe four top five placings in the Copeland (and to be brutally honest was robbed of the win in 2007) would’ve had to have had him in the frame, surely?

I think comparing he and Ben Johnson there really isn’t a lot between them in their careers, with Tarks better early and Johnson probably having slightly more longevity.
Click to expand...
Yep - couldn't agree more. And if memory serves, the discussion over the last spot came down to exactly that: it was Tarkyn versus one other, and the other guy won. But it was a narrow vote, and Tarks was incredibly unlucky. I'd have to go back and check my notes from the time but I'm 99% sure he was #26 of the 25 to be added.
 
Thanks so much Lardieslads for all your time, effort and expertise in going through each team! Its very much appreciated and recognise how difficult it must have been in pulling the teams apart and critically evaluating them looking for weaknesses - and all the time trying to spare our feelings too :)

In all seriousness its very much appreciated and has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience for all made even better with your involvement.
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
If we’re querying 125 from 125 - I’m interested in your thoughts on Tarkyn Lockyer Lardieslads . I believe four top five placings in the Copeland (and to be brutally honest was robbed of the win in 2007) would’ve had to have had him in the frame, surely?

I think comparing he and Ben Johnson there really isn’t a lot between them in their careers, with Tarks better early and Johnson probably having slightly more longevity.
Click to expand...
Didn't realise he had 4 top 5 placings, pretty impressive. Losing him early in 03 season was a blow, even though we got to the GF.

Re Johnno, always thankful for his coolness in that last min of the 10 drawn GF.
 
Trickster said:
Didn't realise he had 4 top 5 placings, pretty impressive. Losing him early in 03 season was a blow, even though we got to the GF.

Re Johnno, always thankful for his coolness in that last min of the 10 drawn GF.
Click to expand...

And his desperation late in the 2002 qualifying final against Port Adelaide when he took down Burgoyne in the goalsquare.
 
Lardieslads said:
Archie Smith is my biggest regret from the first book: he should have been there but I don't think even I fully appreciated the extent of his achievements back then. I don't reckon I fought hard enough for him.
Click to expand...
Just on this Michael, I imagine it may have been difficult to persuade some of the panel in ACOTB given some played in the middle part of the 20th Century (Merrett and 1 or 2 others from memory?) while they would have also had first hand stories of other players also. Just an assumption but imagine some views would have been fixed and difficult to influence.

Out of curiosity, was the voting process much different between the 2 periods? The benefit of the new 25 is that each panel member would have seen all players since 92 so all would have some experience and first hand knowledge of each player.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

South of the Yarra said:
This is truly one of the best threads I have ever been involved in on big footy. No angst, hatred, trolling or bitterness. Just a pure love and passion of our great club.
Click to expand...

Even as a non-competitor I have enjoyed reading this. I've learned more about our rich history, and like you said, just a thread free of criticism and shenanigans.

Perhaps we can go again with Round 2? I sure I could find 9 other eager Pies fans ready to take a crack at this! :thumbsu:
 
Lardieslads said:
And now to the last one! Thanks to all for your patience. I'll post my grand final teams tomorrow, with any luck.
Gouki88
Backs: John Henderson, James Clement, Gordon Hocking
Half Back: Nick Maxwell, Ted Potter, Frank Tuck
Centre: Charlie Pannam Jnr, Scott Russell, Tom Drummond
Half Forward: Doug Barwick, Saverio Rocca, Mal Seddon
Forward: Paul Medhurst, Ian Brewer, J Pimm
Followers: Ray Gabelich, Harry Collier, Dane Swan

The good: Much to like here. Some real talent in defence, with leadership from four skippers in the back half alone (and seven overall!). I don’t think many forward lines would have the better of Maxy, Teddy Potter and Frank Tuck across half-back. The on-ballers are elite (although I think Scott Russell spent a lot more time as ruck-rover/rover/wing than in the centre), and I still can’t believe that Charlie Pannam Jnr slipped all the way to #187!! To me he was just about the steal of the draft (though I might have played him in the centre)

Question marks: Having taken Sav Rocca with a relatively early pick, I’m not sure I then would have played him at centre half-forward! The forward line is a bit unbalanced as a result. The back line also lacks a bit of pace for mine – Maxy, Potter and Tuck are all quite similar players in a lot of ways, and Clement too. Henderson was good but not especially quick and Hocking is the tall/ruck type, so the group lacks at least one small/quick defender in my view.

Best line: That following division! I’m imagining a prime career Gabbo (when he was built like a Greek god), with Harry Collier and Dane Swan. That is just about the best following trio that’s been chosen.

Weakest link: The forward line. Barwick and Medders are good choices for flank and pocket, but we’ve then got three full-forwards and a follower in the rest of the front half. Pimm and Brewer were both good players, but not of Sav’s class, and it feels a bit like robbing Daicos to pay Medhurst to shift Sav out of the goalsquare for either of them. Mal Seddon was also a big bloke, a follower, and so not really suited to a forward flank – certainly not going to get much pace out of him!

Player quality: Slightly above average (12 from 125) Rating 7.5/10

Team balance: Pretty good, though the forward line perhaps less so. 7/10

Summary: Some great pick-ups, and a couple of brilliant lines, but the forward line doesn’t hang together as well as the rest of the line-up, with four big blokes there. If Sav had stayed at FF, and you could have found an alternative for CHF, then I reckon that might have worked a bit better. A smaller or quicker flanker/pocket in defence might have been handy too.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I knew I had left my forward line building a bit late (well, very late). Picking last had it's own unique rewards in getting back-to-back guys, but also unique challenges in the long waits between selection.

I'm glad you like the following division! That was the line I was most happy with, especially with Russell in the centre and Charlie Pannam Jr. on a wing.

Again, thanks for the mountain of work you've done over your career, and the write-ups you've been doing here. The site and books that you've contributed to have been invaluable resources for the Pies tragics here!
 
South of the Yarra said:
I have gained such a great respect for everyone that has been part of it and an even greater respect for Michael’s knowledge, passion and love of our great club. ‘Today I want you to Bleed for Collingwood’
Click to expand...

SoftY - trying to get into Michael's good books as he decided the winner! :) Clear as day!
 
gouki88 said:
Thanks! I knew I had left my forward line building a bit late (well, very late). Picking last had it's own unique rewards in getting back-to-back guys, but also unique challenges in the long waits between selection.

I'm glad you like the following division! That was the line I was most happy with, especially with Russell in the centre and Charlie Pannam Jr. on a wing.

Again, thanks for the mountain of work you've done over your career, and the write-ups you've been doing here. The site and books that you've contributed to have been invaluable resources for the Pies tragics here!
Click to expand...
As I’m sure is the case with other posters, I ended up taking closer inspection of choices on picks right next to mine… and as a result, really enjoyed your work gouki88 / Pie 4 Life. So well done. Tough gig, and all entrants really did their homework.
 
Trickster said:
Just on this Michael, I imagine it may have been difficult to persuade some of the panel in ACOTB given some played in the middle part of the 20th Century (Merrett and 1 or 2 others from memory?) while they would have also had first hand stories of other players also. Just an assumption but imagine some views would have been fixed and difficult to influence.

Out of curiosity, was the voting process much different between the 2 periods? The benefit of the new 25 is that each panel member would have seen all players since 92 so all would have some experience and first hand knowledge of each player.
Click to expand...
The voting for the 2017 book was much easier, because all of us had seen all of the players being added. With ACOTB, there was (a) much less of a formal panel, and (b) it was hard to get people interested in guys from the 1890s and early 1900s. Then again, it's always been hard to get others interested in that era - until this thread!!
 
OK, so now we get to the crunch time – who is going to win this friendly competition?

I’ve been asked to come up with not just a winner but also a ‘grand finalist’ that could take it up to the eventual winner.

In making these judgements, please note that I have based them on the teams purely as selected. This has made things a little harder, because several teams could have been significantly improved just by changing a few players around, which I could have done if I was Chairman of Selectors. Instead I’ve just run with the teams as selected.

And that has made things very tight indeed. Because, while every team was very, very good, no team was perfect. Every team – even the eventual winner – has flaws. So it’s been an exercise in deciding which flaws could be worked around, or mattered less, and which were coach-killers.

With that in mind, the first Grand Finalist is … (insert drum roll) … South of the Yarra. A team full of quality players, and mostly well balanced. The only real issue I had with it was the presence of three big blokes on the forward line (Curtis, BT and Mick Twomey). But I feel like maybe we could live with that at least in part because Frank Murphy was not your traditional centre half-forward. He was mobile and far-roaming – much more of a lead-up option – and I could easily see Harry Curtis, who was a very good centre half-forward, dropping into the hole when Frank ventured further afield.

As for SOTY’s rival? Well, that’s where it gets hard. Half_Back_Flank had the next best squad (maybe even the equal best squad), in my view. So the drafting team had done their bit. But the selectors? Not so much. Sticking champion centreman Bill Strickland in a back pocket and ruckman/follower George Angus where a rover should be undercut so much of HBF’s otherwise outstanding work. If I could have moved Angus to the back pocket, Strickland to the centre, Bobby Rose to rover and swap Mick Bone with Teddy Rowell, then this team would be taking on SOTY in the GF.

Along similar lines, I loved so much about the way Jelly Bean’s team was coming together over the course of the Draft, especially with the presence of many of my favourite 1890s guns. But I couldn’t work out how to deal with the Bri Davey question, and in the end felt I had to mark the team down for that, relative to its rivals. I’m still not convinced that was right, but it was the way I ended up going. (Plus Krak didn’t play enough footy for us, in my view)

After HBF and JB, it felt like I could just about throw a blanket across three or four other teams who all had good cases for a spot in the GF. They all had similar-but-different issues: Trickster, Magpies42 and Gouki all had unconvincing forward halves, while iGNITER had a cracking forward line – but an undeserved selection in Daniel Wells. In the end I decided that Wells’ selection was a more egregious error than having better players in a less balanced line-up. The remaining three all had solid defences but flawed forward lines, and in the end I took the cheat’s way out and decided on … (insert second drum roll) … a tie between Magpies42 and Trickster! Trickster had the better players in defence, and a better trio of key on-ballers (including Bucks, arguably our best-ever). Both teams had one slightly dodgy winger. But Magpies42 had the better balanced attack with more dangerous ground level types in Harris and Doherty and a mid-small in Elliott, as well as triple leading goalkicker Checkers. But he also had Twiggy in the unfamiliar FF role, whereas Trickster had Craig Davis and Didak, but otherwise lacking at ground level. By the end I was going around in circles so I decided to call it a tie!

Sure, technically, that means we have three teams in a Grand Final. But I think South of the Yarra wins it anyway. In the end it’s hard to beat having more good players than the opposition, especially when it’s packaged in a team with only one real selection issue – and I reckon they’re good enough to get around it.

So that’s it! Flame away :) Congratulations to all competitors – it really has been great to see so many brilliant teams being produced. I’m going to have a crack at one myself shortly – obviously with the benefit of hindsight, but why the hell not? And thanks again for all the kind words you have said about me and my work over the past couple of weeks - I've been genuinely chuffed by all of that.

Thanks all!
 
So if Trickster and I combined our teams, we’d probably win right…so we’ll count that a victory :)

Thanks so much for your time Lardieslads, insights and for your assessments. It really completed the experience for me.

I’ve learnt so much through this process, have loved every minute. Thanks to all.
 
Lardieslads said:
OK, so now we get to the crunch time – who is going to win this friendly competition?

I’ve been asked to come up with not just a winner but also a ‘grand finalist’ that could take it up to the eventual winner.

In making these judgements, please note that I have based them on the teams purely as selected. This has made things a little harder, because several teams could have been significantly improved just by changing a few players around, which I could have done if I was Chairman of Selectors. Instead I’ve just run with the teams as selected.

And that has made things very tight indeed. Because, while every team was very, very good, no team was perfect. Every team – even the eventual winner – has flaws. So it’s been an exercise in deciding which flaws could be worked around, or mattered less, and which were coach-killers.

With that in mind, the first Grand Finalist is … (insert drum roll) … South of the Yarra. A team full of quality players, and mostly well balanced. The only real issue I had with it was the presence of three big blokes on the forward line (Curtis, BT and Mick Twomey). But I feel like maybe we could live with that at least in part because Frank Murphy was not your traditional centre half-forward. He was mobile and far-roaming – much more of a lead-up option – and I could easily see Harry Curtis, who was a very good centre half-forward, dropping into the hole when Frank ventured further afield.

As for SOTY’s rival? Well, that’s where it gets hard. Half_Back_Flank had the next best squad (maybe even the equal best squad), in my view. So the drafting team had done their bit. But the selectors? Not so much. Sticking champion centreman Bill Strickland in a back pocket and ruckman/follower George Angus where a rover should be undercut so much of HBF’s otherwise outstanding work. If I could have moved Angus to the back pocket, Strickland to the centre, Bobby Rose to rover and swap Mick Bone with Teddy Rowell, then this team would be taking on SOTY in the GF.

Along similar lines, I loved so much about the way Jelly Bean’s team was coming together over the course of the Draft, especially with the presence of many of my favourite 1890s guns. But I couldn’t work out how to deal with the Bri Davey question, and in the end felt I had to mark the team down for that, relative to its rivals. I’m still not convinced that was right, but it was the way I ended up going. (Plus Krak didn’t play enough footy for us, in my view)

After HBF and JB, it felt like I could just about throw a blanket across three or four other teams who all had good cases for a spot in the GF. They all had similar-but-different issues: Trickster, Magpies42 and Gouki all had unconvincing forward halves, while iGNITER had a cracking forward line – but an undeserved selection in Daniel Wells. In the end I decided that Wells’ selection was a more egregious error than having better players in a less balanced line-up. The remaining three all had solid defences but flawed forward lines, and in the end I took the cheat’s way out and decided on … (insert second drum roll) … a tie between Magpies42 and Trickster! Trickster had the better players in defence, and a better trio of key on-ballers (including Bucks, arguably our best-ever). Both teams had one slightly dodgy winger. But Magpies42 had the better balanced attack with more dangerous ground level types in Harris and Doherty and a mid-small in Elliott, as well as triple leading goalkicker Checkers. But he also had Twiggy in the unfamiliar FF role, whereas Trickster had Craig Davis and Didak, but otherwise lacking at ground level. By the end I was going around in circles so I decided to call it a tie!

Sure, technically, that means we have three teams in a Grand Final. But I think South of the Yarra wins it anyway. In the end it’s hard to beat having more good players than the opposition, especially when it’s packaged in a team with only one real selection issue – and I reckon they’re good enough to get around it.

So that’s it! Flame away :) Congratulations to all competitors – it really has been great to see so many brilliant teams being produced. I’m going to have a crack at one myself shortly – obviously with the benefit of hindsight, but why the hell not? And thanks again for all the kind words you have said about me and my work over the past couple of weeks - I've been genuinely chuffed by all of that.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for contributing Michael, and congratulations, South of the Yarra !!!
 
Great job all of you.

Great judging Lardieslads - really insightful comments. The criticism of one team for not having a genuine rover was an interesting one, as it reminded me of the late 80s when we as supporters we were desperate for a properly short guy to play rover in the style of Johnny Platten and were delighted when Tony Francis arrived. Seems strange when in recent years recruiters have been putting a line through the properly short guys - although that appears to be shifting back.
 
Thanks again Michael and look forward to seeing your team! Well done to all on everyone's respective teams and to the overall winner South of the Yarra, very well deserved and a cracking team. Great job magpies42 also in being up there. As Michael said it was a flip of the coin so could have been a number of teams there at the end so feel fortunate to have got a mention.

In the end the great part of this was delving into the clubs' and players' history, its taught me a lot more about our great club but I also enjoyed the banter and discussions with all involved. As if it wadn't great already we were then fortunate to have Michael involved also and get his view on the teams but also hearing more on the players too. That was such an experience also so thanks again Michael.

As SOTY said, it was a great respectful thread and credit to all. Selfishly if there's ever a sequel or variation, I'd put my hand up again, but conscious there's others who'd want to be part of the fun also.

Such a great experience and so much thanks again to half_back_flank for putting this together. Well done everyone!!

Go Pies!
 
sr36 said:
Great job all of you.

Great judging Lardieslads - really insightful comments. The criticism of one team for not having a genuine rover was an interesting one, as it reminded me of the late 80s when we as supporters we were desperate for a properly short guy to play rover in the style of Johnny Platten and were delighted when Tony Francis arrived. Seems strange when in recent years recruiters have been putting a line through the properly short guys - although that appears to be shifting back.
Click to expand...

I thought Tony Francis was the prototypical rover in every sense - extreme acceleration, agressive hard as nails tackler, cannonball into packs, good footskills, and below 170cm....

Loved Scooter!
 
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
174
Views
5K
McOrist
McOrist
76woodenspooners
Analysis A journey back in time to 1 Sept 2021
Replies
13
Views
824
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
383
Mollythedolly
Mollythedolly

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top