Did Collingwood have everything in it's favour in 2002 ?

[eastaugh36]

This is just my opinion ok.
Its 2 great rivals over the last 10 years, Essendon and Carlton, were riddled with injury and just could not take a trick.
Next year Carlton will be back, Pagan is there etc.
Essendon will have a better year with injury.
Everything seemed to fall Collingwoods way this year, (apart from cloke). They got the right conditions on grand final day too and in all honesty, if asked to pick a winner when fraser kicked that goal I would have tipped them.
What do you think of this statement ? Do you agree or disagree ?

 

[Diego]

I agree to some extent. Luck is not always on your side.


They did a Sydney like in 96, and like Sydney will fade.

 

[ramjet]

molloy - just 7 games through injury after almost pinching a copeland in '01.
fraser - no pre-season with OP
obree - no pre-season with OP
nick davis - OP
leon davis - played with shin splints since round 7-8 from memory
rintoul - in our best early before migraines restricted him from even training. likely to retire because of it
tyson lane - quit club
damien adkins - still returning from 2 years of OP
cummings - always a gamble but repeatedly injured
cloke - suspended for GF (albeit that tribunal made right decision)
tarrant - hip injury since round 11. knee injury in prelim and GF

most clubs have similar stories so its not a case of collingwood necessarily being hard done by injury wise(carlton, saints etc had shocking runs).

positives;
a full year(for the first time in 4-5 yrs) from scott burns
mcgough, cloke etc stood up as 1st year players
a new sense of togetherness that galvanised them.

pies made their own luck.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by ramjet

positives;
a full year(for the first time in 4-5 yrs) from scott burns
mcgough, cloke etc stood up as 1st year players
a new sense of togetherness that galvanised them.

pies made their own luck.

Collingwoods injury run was comparable to other sides, except for a few who did far worse.

However, on the "positives" aspect, you forgot to mention how Collingwood got a PF match against a side playing it's fourth consecutive road game (whereas they should have had a home game the week before), and you also forgot to mention how Collingwood got a home Grand Final against a higher-ranked opponent.

Regardless of the contract or other practical considerations, the end effect was still an un-earned advantage for Collingwood.

 

[bb_gun]

...and when is the last time the Crows have ever beaten the Pies? In Vic or SA?

Pies 13
Crows 5

They always humiliate you.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by bb_gun
...and when is the last time the Crows have ever beaten the Pies? In Vic or SA?

Pies 13
Crows 5

They always humiliate you.

Pies are one side that the Crows have trouble with, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

What the hell has that got to do with un-earned advantages granted to Collingwood ? (which BTW is the topic of this thread).

What the hell has that got to do with Collingwood sooking for no reason ?

Nothing at all that I can see.

 

[Nic]

When was the last time an interstate team had a home Grand Final??

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by eastaugh36

Essendon will have a better year with injury.
Everything seemed to fall Collingwoods way this year, (apart from cloke). They got the right conditions on grand final day too and in all honesty, if asked to pick a winner when fraser kicked that goal I would have tipped them.
What do you think of this statement ? Do you agree or disagree ?

Collingwood had just as bad a run with injury if you care to open your eyes for a change.

Fraser, Rocca, O Bree, Molloy, Nick Davis all had no pre season and started off the year behind the ball.

Cummings, Tarrant, Leon Davis, Buckley, Molloy, O'bree, Nick Davis all missed up to 5 or 6 games with injury.

A lot of people didnt even tip Collingwood to make the eight at the start of the year so to claim everything fell their way is ridiculous.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Nic
When was the last time an interstate team had a home Grand Final??

No interstate team has ever had a home GF.

What has that got to do with actually earning the GF on merit though?

Sydney should have had a home GF in 96. I'm pretty sure West Coast should have had one at some point, if not two. Brisbane earned it in 2002 over their opponent as well.

I'm not saying the GF should have been played interstate. I'm saying only that the opposition GF team (the Victorian team) on those occasions got an unearned advantage.

 

[Dave]

Funny, where does it say the higher ranked team gets to host the GF?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave
Funny, where does it say the higher ranked team gets to host the GF?

Nowhere.

Where is it justified in football terms that a lower-ranked Victorian side gets to host the GF?

I'm not arguing finance or tradition or contracts here. I'm not saying the GF should be relocated or anything. All I note is that from a fair and sporting perspective there is only one set of teams that are in a position to get a freebie home ground advantage on GF day - the set of teams who have Victoria as their home state.

Not that this happens all the time - when two teams from that state play in a GF there is probably no real advanatge to either one.

That does nothing to change the fact that if there is any occasion when a team does get a GF advantage it is always a Victorian side that gets it, and also that on three or four occassions in the AFL to date from a sporting viewpoint that advantage was unearned.

 

[Jabber]

I thought the home finals issue had finally died a natural death.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Where is it justified in football terms that a lower-ranked Victorian side gets to host the GF?

They don't, the MCC hosts it. Last time I looked the MCC weren't in the competition.

All I note is that from a fair and sporting perspective there is only one set of teams that are in a position to get a freebie home ground advantage on GF day

Do they? Results would indicate otherwise.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Jabber
I thought the home finals issue had finally died a natural death.

This issue won't die until it is killed by the AFL scheduling finals at the venues that they should be, instead of all the time trying to get them played in Melbourne.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave

They don't, the MCC hosts it. Last time I looked the MCC weren't in the competition.

1 out of 10 for being technically correct, but a five point penalty for not answering the question leaves you with minus four.

Do they? Results would indicate otherwise.

Results would indicate that the interstate sides who won were far better sides than their opponents on those GF days.

The fact that on several occasions Victorian sides were not good enough to take the advantage given to them has nothing to do with the fact that the Victorian side still got an uneraned advantage in the first place.

 

[Rohan_]

Perhaps if more people showed up to South Australian finals cobber, you wouldn't have to play finals in Victoria.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Pies are one side that the Crows have trouble with, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

What the hell has that got to do with un-earned advantages granted to Collingwood ? (which BTW is the topic of this thread).

Whether or not the Crows were hard done by, no advantage was "granted" to Collingwood. They went to SA and played the number 1 team and won. Therefore they played at home. The Crows suffered from too much travel but given they were beaten by the same team at home and have a prro record against them even when Collingwood was at its historical worst, they can hardly assume the result would have been any different under any different circumstances. Collingwood proved, on any measure, to be a better side in 2002 than the Crows.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
The fact that on several occasions Victorian sides were not good enough to take the advantage given to them has nothing to do with the fact that the Victorian side still got an uneraned advantage in the first place.

You're assuming that hga exists on Grand Final day.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Rohan_
Perhaps if more people showed up to South Australian finals cobber, you wouldn't have to play finals in Victoria.

Plenty of people turned up to the first two AFL finals hosted in Soth Australia. Both games were sell-outs.

Port's poor following notwithstanding, where is that any excuse to make Crows play four consecutive road matches including three finals when they finished third?

Notwithstanding the fact that your point holds no water at all for Crows from a financial perspective it also holds no water for any side from a sporting perspective.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Dave


You're assuming that hga exists on Grand Final day.

The MCG doesnt get magically teleported to Norfolk Island, so yes, it does hold some hga.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave


You're assuming that hga exists on Grand Final day.

You are assuming that hga doesn't exist and also ignoring the travel factor, as well as ignoring the aspect of fans being able to attend.

You are up to about minus fifteen now for ignoring the actual issues here, and not answering the questions.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by MarkT

Whether or not the Crows were hard done by, no advantage was "granted" to Collingwood.

That is simply not true. The Crows had an extra week of travel, and probably had a harder time against Melbourne because they didnt have the home ground advantage.

I'm not saying Collingwood still wouldnt have won, but you did have some small "advantage".

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by MarkT

Whether or not the Crows were hard done by, no advantage was "granted" to Collingwood. They went to SA and played the number 1 team and won. Therefore they played at home. The Crows suffered from too much travel but given they were beaten by the same team at home and have a prro record against them even when Collingwood was at its historical worst, they can hardly assume the result would have been any different under any different circumstances. Collingwood proved, on any measure, to be a better side in 2002 than the Crows.

Collingwood gained a definite advantage out of the outcome compared to what the "neutral" situation could have been.

Collingwood earned the right to play in Victoria in the PF - no question there. But their opponent could have been another Victorian side, or it could have been a side that had at least had one home match instead of four away games in succession.

So yes, Collingwood definately got the rosy end of the actual outcome, far more than they deserved.

IMO, very debateable about how well Collingwood would have gone if they didn't get such a rosy run.

Collingwood had one good victory in that run (of finals and leading up to the finals) - against Port at Footy Park.

Collingwood IMO would not have got anywhere near a GF berth if they had to play in Perth, then at the Gabba, then in Adelaide twice - in order to get there. Yet that was the equivalent task faced by the side that finished ahead of you.

Pies were dead lucky to get as far as they did IMO.

 

[PAfolwr]

At the end of the H-A season the standing's were:
1. Port
2. Brisbane
3. Adelaide
4. Collingwood
During the finals Collingwood beat Port and Adelaide.
During the finals Brisbane beat Collingwood, Port and Adelaide.
Couldn't be a fairer end result.

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by Rohan_
Perhaps if more people showed up to South Australian finals cobber, you wouldn't have to play finals in Victoria.

If Port were in Adelaides shoes and missed a home final then you would have a point but it was Adelaide who missed out, unlike Port they would fill footy park. Its port who cant draw a crowd.