not an excuse, just an assessment

[walshy1993]

this definatly isnt an excuse for the performance
we played terribly and port were great


but
hird, long, heffernan, fletcher, wallis and barnes all missing

rioil, jacobs and ramanauskas all spent considerable time down back showing that sheeds was definatly experimenting
misiti also went forward, lloyd played a bit up the ground, m.johnson and solomon played midfield and.....most shocking of all
lucas handballed

also....for no aparant reason blumfield, caracella, moorcroft, solomon spent coniserable time on the bench


as i said, im not taking anything away from port, they definatly were far to good
these are just some observations

 

[magpie_joffa]

lol what an excuse.....LOL LOL

------------------
There is nothing in life greater,than to be a supporter or our beloved collingwood football club,we must remain united,we must stand tall,we must be prepared to fight for our glorious black and white,for we are THE ENVY OF ALL NATIONS.

 

[Grave Danger]

Yes, plenty of first choice players missing and no doubt better credentialled than those Port had missing.

But - Essendon stated publicly before the game that they definitely want to make the Grand Final of the Ansett Cup to enable Michael long to get a game before round one. And you could hear Sheedy's teeth grinding at his after match press confidence - he was fuming.

 

[Frodo]

I would love to see Port beat Essendon in the real competition but in all honesty I can't see it. Sheedy is far too wiley a character and knows how hard back to back flags are to get. The Ansett cup means nothing to him or any top club bar those in desperate financial situations.
Hwe wont get them up to speed until round one and will try to get them to peak for the finals.
Top sides like Essendon have don't lose it that easily.

 

[Pessimistic]

Shocked By the power....

 

[gocatsgo]

Thanks a lot Essendon!

Couldn't you have left that performance for NEXT week.

Now guess who's gonna cop it?!?!?! in front of 40,000 at Colonial.

However, maybe I'm being a bit harsh on Geelong, but after our Woeful display against Sydney, I'can't see anything but a thrashing this week.

At least there will still be no Hird, Long, Barnes, Wallis and Fletcher and according to Mark Thompson, we'll be at full strength.

Only a 50 point hammering instead of 100 then!

 

[The invisible mullet]

Hey Joffa was that a letter from you in Inside Footy?

 

[Rooboy 96]

Walshy... and I am definately not laughing...

 

[Tom FC]

Not an excuse? Who are you kidding, Walshy?

Aside from the scoreline, there were a heap of negatives for the Bombers:

Their timing, impeccable in 2000, seemed completely off.

Their tackling was much less effective.

They hugged the sides rather than going up the middle.

Their disposal was ordinary.

Their kicking for goal was poor.

Their defence seemed disorganised.


Regardless of who was missing, they simply did not look like the same side. Now, I'm sure they can regroup and go on to inevitably win the flag, but why bother trying to cover up that they had their first truly woeful performance in perhaps two years?

 

[Arch]

all true walshy- but I tend to agree with Tom FC

that so many of our normal trademarks like agressive tackling, harrassment of the ball carrier, SPOILING, accuracy with hand and foot,defensive teamwork, the kick ins from defense and rebound out of the D 50 were all woeful. I was mainly disappointed in the total lack of effort and enthusiasm, and the fact our lads didnt respond when challenged. Add to that Port played great footy throughout.

But we'll get better. Alot better

PS- just watching the game, it reminded me what Pies supporters must go through on a weekly basis.

[This message has been edited by Arch (edited 19 February 2001).]

 

[walshy1993]

Originally posted by Tom FC:
Not an excuse? Who are you kidding, Walshy?

Aside from the scoreline, there were a heap of negatives for the Bombers:

Their timing, impeccable in 2000, seemed completely off.

Their tackling was much less effective.

They hugged the sides rather than going up the middle.

Their disposal was ordinary.

Their kicking for goal was poor.

Their defence seemed disorganised.


Regardless of who was missing, they simply did not look like the same side. Now, I'm sure they can regroup and go on to inevitably win the flag, but why bother trying to cover up that they had their first truly woeful performance in perhaps two years?

as i said tom, we were terrible and port were fantastic

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by walshy1993:
this definatly isnt an excuse for the performance
we played terribly and port were great


but
hird, long, heffernan, fletcher, wallis and barnes all missing

rioil, jacobs and ramanauskas all spent considerable time down back showing that sheeds was definatly experimenting
misiti also went forward, lloyd played a bit up the ground, m.johnson and solomon played midfield and.....most shocking of all
lucas handballed

also....for no aparant reason blumfield, caracella, moorcroft, solomon spent coniserable time on the bench


as i said, im not taking anything away from port, they definatly were far to good
these are just some observations

ok...these ARE excuses
port were without...Lade, Lockwood, Burgoyne, Nick Stevens, Michael Stevens, Paul Kooloroutis, Shane Bond, Paxman, Basset.

Steinberner, Kane Cornes and Guerra all played a lot...Mead was playing up forward, Chad Cornes was playing up field more...Dew was on the back flank.

Port were without a lot of first team players as well remember

 

[TD]

All true Walshy, but I personally don't think any of that had anything to do with the loss. We had 15 premiership players on the track, plus a couple who were unlucky to miss out on being a premiership player and a couple of promising youngsters. Easily good enough on paper to match it with most, if not all teams in the league. Simple fact is, we played terrible footy. We lacked commitment, we fumbled, looked extremely rusty, and basically displayed none of the form that was the norm last year.

On a positive note, I don't think you will see this sort of form too often.