Is Pendles playing?

[Optimax]

Have you worn out your Shift Key Dave?

Stop trying to start spot fires, or i will start bringing up some of your classic posts again.

Me and now DTM, grow up

 

[Somebody]

I"mn not sure but I think back-related hammie means there's not an actual physical hammie injury, but a spasm in the hamstrings caused by some kind of nervous system feedback from a back problem. But the spasm probably means the hammie is much more vulnerable to actually tearing when worked, like in a match.
Maybe someone else knows more about this stuff.

 

[KissStephanie]

Apparently he didn't train and apparently he actually has a hamstring and is absolutley no chance of playing v carlton

Where is your source regarding this? I'd be interested in reading it. He didn't train yesterday, but Collingwood train again on Saturday, so of course while he may not play against Carlton, I don't think it will be determined until then.

Also, I haven't seen anything whatsoever regarding a hamstring injury, so if you have, then please share it. I have only seen that he has been experiencing back pain, but I haven't seen anything that mentions a hamstring.

 

[mdc]

Where is your source regarding this? I'd be interested in reading it. He didn't train yesterday, but Collingwood train again on Saturday, so of course while he may not play against Carlton, I don't think it will be determined until then.

Also, I haven't seen anything whatsoever regarding a hamstring injury, so if you have, then please share it. I have only seen that he has been experiencing back pain, but I haven't seen anything that mentions a hamstring.

Search the board for a thread called Pendles-OUT

We had an inside tip that he wouldn't play due to a hamstring problem well before there were any doubt over his fitness in the media.

 

[didaka]

I"mn not sure but I think back-related hammie means there's not an actual physical hammie injury, but a spasm in the hamstrings caused by some kind of nervous system feedback from a back problem. But the spasm probably means the hammie is much more vulnerable to actually tearing when worked, like in a match.
Maybe someone else knows more about this stuff.

Correct

 

[popathon]

Is it strange that Wood, Pendles & Reid have all been named on the extended bench, but they have all also been named as starters in the VFL side?

 

[Optimax]

Is it strange that Wood, Pendles & Reid have all been named on the extended bench, but they have all also been named as starters in the VFL side?

nah mate, they've basically been named as emergencies and as such get named in the vfl so they can play if they arnt picked

 

[popathon]

nah mate, they've basically been named as emergencies and as such get named in the vfl so they can play if they arnt picked

Makes sense, but why name Pendles? If he's not playing the blues because of injury why would he play in the 2's?

 

[Optimax]

Makes sense, but why name Pendles? If he's not playing the blues because of injury why would he play in the 2's?

no he wouldnt, makes me think he is playing though

 

[popathon]

nohe wouldnt, makes me think he is playing though

One can only hope.

 

[hellfire]

The back soreness is probably from when the spud Courtney Johns barreled into his back on ANZAC day.

 

[mdc]

I still haven't heard or read anything related to a hamstring, so if you have a source, then I'd love to read it. I have only heard and read that he had back pain. 'Inside tips' mean as much to me as allegations and slander made on the Internet, and stories written on dunny walls.

Search the board for a thread called Pendles-OUT

^^^^

 

[KissStephanie]

Search the board for a thread called Pendles-OUT

We had an inside tip that he wouldn't play due to a hamstring problem well before there were any doubt over his fitness in the media.

I still haven't heard or read anything related to a hamstring, so if you have a source, then I'd love to read it. I have only heard and read that he had back pain. 'Inside tips' mean as much to me as allegations and slander made on the Internet, and stories written on dunny walls.

^^^^

I doubt there is a board regarding this, but do you mean this thread that mentions a rumour without any sources? Just as I said, I have heard and read reports regarding back pain, but nothing reliable about a hamstring. Rumours, innuendo and inside tips don't count of course because I'm not gullible or judgemental, and I don't jump to conclusions. If you have a source, then I would love to read it. If your source is a thread about a rumour, then it doesn't say anything.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Except what actually happened. Back > back-related hammy > hammy. Whether the exact problem was known or not, the originator of the info knew Pendlebury was out.

 

[mdc]

I doubt there is a board regarding this, but do you mean this thread that mentions a rumour without any sources? Just as I said, I have heard and read reports regarding back pain, but nothing reliable about a hamstring. Rumours, innuendo and inside tips don't count of course because I'm not gullible or judgemental, and I don't jump to conclusions. If you have a source, then I would love to read it. If your source is a thread about a rumour, then it doesn't say anything.

Yes, I mean that thread, which was posted well before the media were reporting that Pendlebury would miss. By a poster who already had some credit in the bank.

You are absolutely correct about traditional media being the only trust-worthy "source", of course. Given they get their info direct from MM & co., and given MM has never been known to deliberately spread misinformation before a game, they should obviously be our only "source" of information.

For someone who isn't gullible nor judgmental, you sure sound gullible and judgmental about "sources".

 

[HFF]

Listening to Pendles on The Squawk, he said he managed to get through today's training session pain-free and should be right to go for Sunday's clash, provided he gets the all-clear.

He'll play.

 

[kevind]

I doubt there is a board regarding this, but do you mean this thread that mentions a rumour without any sources? Just as I said, I have heard and read reports regarding back pain, but nothing reliable about a hamstring. Rumours, innuendo and inside tips don't count of course because I'm not gullible or judgemental, and I don't jump to conclusions. If you have a source, then I would love to read it. If your source is a thread about a rumour, then it doesn't say anything.

There was a guy claiming to be a friend of Pedleberry, who posted last week well before it had reached the press, that Pendleberry had done a hamstring and would not play against Melbourne. He was spot on. If he had simply made it up, it would have put Nostradamus to shame. Therefore, I think it is highly unlikely that Pendlebbery will play against the Blues.

Pointless to tell you perhaps, if like Mozart, you simply follow your own feelings.

I don't know about other Pies supporters, but I am becoming very concerned about this week. MMs comments about too many big games, the selection of a guy with virtually no form in Reid and the pathetic excuses for the earlier loss to Carlton are starting to smell to me like panic stations.

 

[KissStephanie]

There was a guy claiming to be a friend of Pedleberry, who posted last week well before it had reached the press, that Pendleberry had done a hamstring and would not play against Melbourne. He was spot on.

Is that so? If it was "spot on" then where are the official sources that shows he has a hamstring injury? I haven't seen anything regarding that. I have seen and read reports regarding back pain, but nothing about a hamstring. If you have seen something different, then please share it.

If he had simply made it up, it would have put Nostradamus to shame.

How do you come to that conclusion? Firstly, many of Nostradamus' predictions were misinterpreted and misunderstood, and secondly, back pain is not "done a hamstring."

Therefore, I think it is highly unlikely that Pendlebbery will play against the Blues.

Maybe he won't play due to back pain, but I can assure you that if he had "done a hamstring," then he would already have been ruled out.

Pointless to tell you perhaps, if like Mozart, you simply follow your own feelings.

I simply don't take much notice of rumours, innuendo, unsourced accusations, etc., and a 'name-dropper' is not a reliable source as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about other Pies supporters, but I am becoming very concerned about this week. MMs comments about too many big games, the selection of a guy with virtually no form in Reid and the pathetic excuses for the earlier loss to Carlton are starting to smell to me like panic stations.

"Panic stations?" Collingwood has won the last four matches, and two of them by an average margin of 93 points. Why on earth would anybody at Collingwood be panicking about that?

That said, Carlton have three number one draft picks, as well as Fevola, Judd and Stevens, and they often lift against Collingwood, and they won earlier in the season. I find it normal and healthy to be concerned about this week. What's wrong with that? Nothing is sure in footy. In Round 4, Collingwood were terrible, and that is not a "pathetic excuse," but reality. Do you disagree? Carlton were very good, yet they ony won by 23 points. In my opinion, Collingwood only had to perform a little better to have beaten them, and as well as Carlton played, they needed Collingwood to play poorly to win, and that is what happened.

Nobody knows if Collingwood will be up to play this weekend, or whether Carlton will be for that matter, but if Collingwood at least closely match the intensity of Carlton, then they should win because Collingwood are a collectively better team. Carlton are an improving side, and an improving side with their sights on the top-8 are obviously a concern though, particularly when that side is an arch rival. If Collingwood can beat Geelong by 86 points, then Carlton can beat Collingwood of course. It is simply reality.

As far as blockbusters are concerned, I definitely agree with Malthouse, and I don't find it a negative thing for him to shared those views. Collingwood were a little down last week, while Melbourne were definitely up for the match, so making mention of it in public is his way of getting the players up for another big match. Reverse psychology by making mention of it to bring awareness. Again, I don't see how that is a bad thing. You see it one way, and I see it the opposite way. Collingwood should refuse one stand alone match next season though, and the Queen's Birthday match should be scrapped.

The ANZAC Day match will obviously remain, as will the split-bye match in Sydney, and there will always be matches during the season that attracts 70,000 or more. Why add to that with a match on Queen's Birthday against Melbourne when it is always their home game and they keep the gate receipts, and it's their biggest match of the season? That match doesn't help Collingwood in any way, and playing Melbourne on a Sat'day or Sunday afternoon would not lift the opposition as much. Give that day to another team as soon as possible, and Collingwood and Melbourne should alternate home games instead of them always getting it as well.

Finally, it seems like you rate Shannon Cox higher than I do. He is a handy player, but I definitely see more a future with Ben Reid than Cox. I think it's great that Reid has been given another opportunity to play in a big match in front of a big crowd, and Collingwood need to make an adjustment to the forward line after last week. In the past two weeks, Cox has only averaged 7 kicks, 7 handpasses, 4 marks and 1 goal, and if Collingwood loses, I doubt that it will have anything to do with the inclusion of Reid at the expense of Cox. If Reid can kick a goal, then he has matched Cox, and I think he would be harder for Carlton to match-up on. I think it's a good inclusion!

This week is Shane Wakelin's 150th match for Collingwood. It is Mick Malthouse's 750th combined match as player and coach, and his 576th match as coach, which puts him outright third of all coaches ever. It is also the week that Collingwood farewells and celebrates Nathan Buckley's career in a crucial match as far as the top-4 is concerned. I don't know what is going to happen, but I am more excited by the idea of watching it live on TV from here in the US, than concerned about it, that's for sure.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

Makes sense, but why name Pendles? If he's not playing the blues because of injury why would he play in the 2's?

you're not confusing him with his brother kris are you?

 

[Invigoration]

you're not confusing him with his brother kris are you?

Nah Scott got named in the Reserves, but they name everyone that is listed on the Collingwood bench, just so they don't give anything away.

 

[kevind]

Is that so? If it was "spot on" then where are the official sources that shows he has a hamstring injury? I haven't seen anything regarding that. I have seen and read reports regarding back pain, but nothing about a hamstring. If you have seen something different, then please share it.How do you come to that conclusion? Firstly, many of Nostradamus' predictions were misinterpreted and misunderstood, and secondly, back pain is not "done a hamstring."Maybe he won't play due to back pain, but I can assure you that if he had "done a hamstring," then he would already have been ruled out.I simply don't take much notice of rumours, innuendo, unsourced accusations, etc., and a 'name-dropper' is not a reliable source as far as I'm concerned."Panic stations?" Collingwood has won the last four matches, and two of them by an average margin of 93 points. Why on earth would anybody at Collingwood be panicking about that?

That said, Carlton have three number one draft picks, as well as Fevola, Judd and Stevens, and they often lift against Collingwood, and they won earlier in the season. I find it normal and healthy to be concerned about this week. What's wrong with that? Nothing is sure in footy. In Round 4, Collingwood were terrible, and that is not a "pathetic excuse," but reality. Do you disagree? Carlton were very good, yet they ony won by 23 points. In my opinion, Collingwood only had to perform a little better to have beaten them, and as well as Carlton played, they needed Collingwood to play poorly to win, and that is what happened.

Nobody knows if Collingwood will be up to play this weekend, or whether Carlton will be for that matter, but if Collingwood at least closely match the intensity of Carlton, then they should win because Collingwood are a collectively better team. Carlton are an improving side, and an improving side with their sights on the top-8 are obviously a concern though, particularly when that side is an arch rival. If Collingwood can beat Geelong by 86 points, then Carlton can beat Collingwood of course. It is simply reality.

As far as blockbusters are concerned, I definitely agree with Malthouse, and I don't find it a negative thing for him to shared those views. Collingwood were a little down last week, while Melbourne were definitely up for the match, so making mention of it in public is his way of getting the players up for another big match. Reverse psychology by making mention of it to bring awareness. Again, I don't see how that is a bad thing. You see it one way, and I see it the opposite way. Collingwood should refuse one stand alone match next season though, and the Queen's Birthday match should be scrapped.

The ANZAC Day match will obviously remain, as will the split-bye match in Sydney, and there will always be matches during the season that attracts 70,000 or more. Why add to that with a match on Queen's Birthday against Melbourne when it is always their home game and they keep the gate receipts, and it's their biggest match of the season? That match doesn't help Collingwood in any way, and playing Melbourne on a Sat'day or Sunday afternoon would not lift the opposition as much. Give that day to another team as soon as possible, and Collingwood and Melbourne should alternate home games instead of them always getting it as well.

Finally, it seems like you rate Shannon Cox higher than I do. He is a handy player, but I definitely see more a future with Ben Reid than Cox. I think it's great that Reid has been given another opportunity to play in a big match in front of a big crowd, and Collingwood need to make an adjustment to the forward line after last week. In the past two weeks, Cox has only averaged 7 kicks, 7 handpasses, 4 marks and 1 goal, and if Collingwood loses, I doubt that it will have anything to do with the inclusion of Reid at the expense of Cox. If Reid can kick a goal, then he has matched Cox, and I think he would be harder for Carlton to match-up on. I think it's a good inclusion!

This week is Shane Wakelin's 150th match for Collingwood. It is Mick Malthouse's 750th combined match as player and coach, and his 576th match as coach, which puts him outright third of all coaches ever. It is also the week that Collingwood farewells and celebrates Nathan Buckley's career in a crucial match as far as the top-4 is concerned. I don't know what is going to happen, but I am more excited by the idea of watching it live on TV from here in the US, than concerned about it, that's for sure.

My dear friend , to respond to some of your points. I believe if somone is willing to stick their neck out and predict that Pendleberry will not play before the event when other sources eg press,club ect have not even mentioned the fact gives the guy credibility. What he stated, before the event , was a FACT. The guy who posted, claimed to be a friend of Pendleberry and stated that the injury was a hamstring.

Secondly. back complaints whether muscular or disc related have a high cause-effect correlation to hamstrings, as has a condition called sciatica as the sciatic nerve leaves the spinal cord and runs down the back of both legs.

Thirdly, using the phrase about Nostradamus was purely a linguistic effect to make a point. Nostradamus's writings were in old French, a language not very well understood by even modern Franchophones. Terms such as enigmatic are often used to describe his writings, although I prefer the phrase 'deliberately vague in order to decieve'.

AS for Reid, I am surprised you don't see the risk in picking him when he has no form to warrant his selection. Indeed his last AFL game was an absolute disaster and one of the worst games you will ever see by an AFL player. One poster on this board even suggested he cost us the game against North, and I am inclined to agree. I have watched him in the VFL as well and his form there has not been good. He is very dependent on taking uncontested marks, so I don't see much of a chance that he will have any impact against Carlton and he potentially could cost us the game if it is close. Bringing in such a young player into a big game is so much old Collingwood and a real gamble.

As for Cox, yes he has not been great, but he also hasn't been bad. His attack on the ball and on the man when we don't have the ball is not the best. However. against West Coast, he played on Darren Glass who is one the great defenders of the modern era.

AS for MMs comments, I still think they reflect a subtext of real concern over this week's game. This constant whinge that we were not ready for them last time is to my mind a pathetic excuse. Surely it's the coach's resposibility to prepare the side to ensure that they are 'up' for the game. Don't forget they had us beaten before tanking the last time we played them in 2007. To say we are definitely a better side is a little premature and will look rather silly if they beat us on Sunday. Most of our beter players are very young and we still have many vulnerabilities, so declaring ourselves better than anyone else before the event is only fraught with danger.

AS for ridding ourselves of a big game, that's absurd. Any player worth their salt loves to play in the big games. If we had of played Melbourne on Saturday or Sunday, they would have still set themselves for a big one as the are playing Collingwood. Just about every club does this. Get over it.

 

[KissStephanie]

I believe if somone is willing to stick their neck out and predict that Pendleberry will not play before the event when other sources eg press,club ect have not even mentioned the fact gives the guy credibility. What he stated, before the event , was a FACT. The guy who posted, claimed to be a friend of Pendleberry and stated that the injury was a hamstring.

Ummm...do you have any reliable source whatsoever regarding him having "done a hamstring" as you put it? I'm sure I've asked that question before without any response regarding it. He missed last week with a back complaint.

Secondly. back complaints whether muscular or disc related have a high cause-effect correlation to hamstrings, as has a condition called sciatica as the sciatic nerve leaves the spinal cord and runs down the back of both legs.

Oh for goodness sake. I am an RPA-C and I work in a pain clinic here in the US, and there is no way known that back pain is automatically connected to hamstrings, hips, legs and feet. To mention sciatica is being absurd. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that I have seen that indicates that Scott Pendlebury is suffering from this, unless of course you have yet another *reliable* source that you can share regarding it.

Of course in some cases back pain is leg related. Muscle related as well (leg muscles, back muscles such as the lumbar multifidus, abdominal muscles etc). However, in some cases back pain is hip related. In some cases back pain is bladder related. In some cases back pain is kidney related. In some cases back pain is bowel related. In some cases back pain is caused by osteoporosis.

In some cases back pain is caused by Kahler's disease. In some cases back pain is caused by Meniscoid Occlusion. In some cases back pain is caused by isolated inflammation. In some cases back pain is caused by a fracture. In most cases back pain is caused by psychosocial reasons that do not show up in scans or x-rays. My point is that there are many more chances that back pain is not hamstring related. Particularly a player that from memory hasn't suffered from any previous hamstring problems such as Pendlebury.

Thirdly, using the phrase about Nostradamus was purely a linguistic effect to make a point. Nostradamus's writings were in old French, a language not very well understood by even modern Franchophones. Terms such as enigmatic are often used to describe his writings, although I prefer the phrase 'deliberately vague in order to decieve'.

So you agree with me then that putting Nostradamus to shame isn't necessarily all that impressive.

AS for Reid, I am surprised you don't see the risk in picking him when he has no form to warrant his selection. Indeed his last AFL game was an absolute disaster and one of the worst games you will ever see by an AFL player.

Firstly, no, I don't see the big risk in playing Reid because as I have already said, if Collingwood loses, I don't believe it will be because Reid is included at the expense of Cox. As I have also already said, I believe that Reid will be a better player than Cox, and definitely harder for Carlton to match-up on. Secondly, although he did play poorly against North Melbourne, to consider it one of the worst games played by an AFL player is being absurd. There are hundreds of players that have had less possessions and less influence on a match in the history of the game.

One poster on this board even suggested he cost us the game against North, and I am inclined to agree.

So? How does that make it fact exactly? "One poster" had their opinion. You had your opinion, and an opinion is neither right or wrong. I personally have a different opinion and that is that 18 year olds rarely have the ability to win or lose a game on their own without the help of their team mates. Collingwood's loss in that match was a team effort.

If any player could be singled out, then I think that Brodie Holland's lack of influence was more costly. Harry O'Brien and Tyson Goldsack were also down, and Anthony Rocca didn't do enough that night either. I don't like to single out players though, so I believe that it was a combined effort.

I have watched him in the VFL as well and his form there has not been good. He is very dependent on taking uncontested marks, so I don't see much of a chance that he will have any impact against Carlton and he potentially could cost us the game if it is close. Bringing in such a young player into a big game is so much old Collingwood and a real gamble.

I see it differently. I don't think that Carlton's backline is their strength. If ever there is a team to play Ben Reid against, it is Carlton. If you feel that is is a gamble to play such a young player in a big game, then you better quickly get on the phone and tell Mick not to play Sharrod Wellingham in the ANZAC Day match or against Geelong! Woops...I think you may be too late. Maybe instead you can ring Mark Harvey and tell him that it would be a huge risk to play Rhys Palmer in the early matches this season.

As for Cox, yes he has not been great, but he also hasn't been bad. His attack on the ball and on the man when we don't have the ball is not the best.

Wow, he sounds irreplaceable!

AS for MMs comments, I still think they reflect a subtext of real concern over this week's game. This constant whinge that we were not ready for them last time is to my mind a pathetic excuse.

It appears that I see things completely differently to you on a regular basis. What you call a "pathetic excuse," I call brutally honest. Carlton lifted and played well to avoid a record losing streak. Collingwood on the other hand did not come to play, yet despite this, Carlton did not extend their lead after the first quarter.

Surely it's the coach's resposibility to prepare the side to ensure that they are 'up' for the game.

Oh for goodness sake! Mick Malthouse gets his players up for matches as much, or more often, than any other coach. He is human, and sometimes he is not as up as other weeks, and the same goes for every other coach. There are many occasions when the coach has felt the team has been ready to play, only to be belted. The coach can only do so much regarding that, and Malthouse is as good as it comes. That said, Collingwood were flat against Carlton last time, and that happens.

To say we are definitely a better side is a little premature and will look rather silly if they beat us on Sunday. Most of our beter players are very young and we still have many vulnerabilities, so declaring ourselves better than anyone else before the event is only fraught with danger.

Oh come off it. Collingwood is a better team collectively than Carlton. I have no doubt about that. It doesn't automatically mean that Collingwood will beat Carlton though, and I am very aware that Carlton is a good chance to win, but as I said last time, if Collingwood at least closely matches Carlton's intensity, then I expect Collingwood to win. If Carlton win, it doesn't mean that they're a better team, so I don't think it would look silly at all.

It would simply be frustrating to lose to a team that Collingwood is better than twice in one year. Teams often beat better teams as I still believe that Geelong is better than Collingwood despite the result from a few weeks ago. Sometimes the better team has even lost Grand Finals in the past. There will be more times in the future that the lesser team beats a better team, and to deny that is being silly.

AS for ridding ourselves of a big game, that's absurd.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that the Queen's Birthday match does not help Collingwood in any way, and I stand-by that opinion. I would rather play Melbourne on a Sat'day or Sunday afternoon without the fanfare or the spotlight and the centre stage of a public holiday.

Any player worth their salt loves to play in the big games.

Of course they do, and not once did I say that Collingwood should not play any big games. It happens all of the time, and my opinion is regarding one of them only, and even Nathan Buckley agrees with me and disagrees with you that it can also be too much. I will take his opinion on that in preference to your opinion on it any day thanks.

If we had of played Melbourne on Saturday or Sunday, they would have still set themselves for a big one as the are playing Collingwood. Just about every club does this.

It looks like I disagree with you again not surprisingly. I definitely feel that Melbourne gets themselves up for Queen's Birthday matches because it is in the spotlight on a public holiday on the centre stage, and not just because it is against Collingwood. Yes they may lift for a Sat'day or Sunday match because they're playing Collingwood, but not to the same extent as they do when it is the standalone match on a public holiday.

Get over it.

No, I don't have to "get over it." I can have my opinion. My opinion is that Collingwood should scrap the Queen's Birthday match and give it to another team. It is not beneficial to the club whatsoever. Collingwood will continue to play plenty of big matches in front of 70,000 plus during the season, but that one is not needed. I agree with Mick Malthouse and Nathan Buckley on that.

 

[mattys123]

Lol, and the award for longest post ever has been finally decided.

 

[Dave The Man]

I heard at Quater Time on Channel 7 that Pendles was Complaining about Tightness in his Hamstring,

That is a Will Worry that he was feeling it in the game