under 40 games.

[santa claws]

it was stated in the media collingwood played 10 players under 40 games against adelaide and they didnt fold like a stack of cards.
we had 11 players under 40 games just 1 more and we did. this tells me playing 10 or so inexperienced players is not the problem but the senior players around those inexperienced ones.
it seems we dont have enough seniors of quality and character to enable us to play lots of kids. does this mean we should stop playing the kids because the seniors arent good enough or should we bite the bullet and keep playing them. im all for the latter.

 

[krustyman]

it was stated in the media collingwood played 10 players under 40 games against adelaide and they didnt fold like a stack of cards.
we had 11 players under 40 games just 1 more and we did. this tells me playing 10 or so inexperienced players is not the problem but the senior players around those inexperienced ones.
it seems we dont have enough seniors of quality and character to enable us to play lots of kids. does this mean we should stop playing the kids because the seniors arent good enough or should we bite the bullet and keep playing them. im all for the latter.

our young players just not as good, their is a big gap with the top 2-3 young players and the other young players, dont try to pin the blame on the senior players

 

[Roger Dodger]

I agree with Santa Claws. Although every team needs a balance between youth and experience, our experienced players go missing. The 157 point margin isn't the only reason to be livid about last week. Take into account the team that kicked it - Geelong. A middle ladder team at best.

 

[Madtiger2006]

it was stated in the media collingwood played 10 players under 40 games against adelaide and they didnt fold like a stack of cards.
we had 11 players under 40 games just 1 more and we did. this tells me playing 10 or so inexperienced players is not the problem but the senior players around those inexperienced ones.
it seems we dont have enough seniors of quality and character to enable us to play lots of kids. does this mean we should stop playing the kids because the seniors arent good enough or should we bite the bullet and keep playing them. im all for the latter.

the difference is collingwood had a bit more experience/class in the middle than us. We have crap like Johnson in the middle for most of the game and we shouldn't have used Lids in the middle either because he is not the ball winning type like Foley is. We are way undersized in the ruck with Richo and Simmo 5-10cm shorter than most ruckman. It's no wonder why we were smashed in the middle against the Cats. We are just wasting time by playing our Captain in the middle. Our future midfield didn't even play in the seniors last week apart from Foley. Looking forward to seeing Polo, Connors and Casserley team up with Foley in the middle

 

[santa claws]

our young players just not as good, their is a big gap with the top 2-3 young players and the other young players, dont try to pin the blame on the senior players

no no i wouldnt dare blame the seniors.those same seniors who have overseen 14th 13th 16th12th 9th place finishes in the last 5 yrs and more than likely a 16th place finish this yr. no the seniors arent the problem its the kids that cant play. sheesh give me a break.

 

[lids2004roar]

Collingwood's senior players were good enough to make 2 grand finals.

That is the difference.

 

[Weaver]

Collingwood's senior players were good enough to make 2 grand finals.

That is the difference.

And their senior players actually show up on weekends. With the exception of Heath Shaw and Travis Cloke - the inexperienced Collingwood guys are not expected to do much other than learn the game. We are expecting our kids to win games of footy.

100+ games
James Clement - 217
Scott Burns - 222
Shane O'Bree - 168
Tarykn Lockyer - 118
Ben Johnson - 136
Josh Fraser - 136
Anthony Rocca - 207
Simon Prestigiacamo - 179
Leon Davis - 115

40+ games
Dane Swan - 51
Rhyce Shaw - 60
Nick Maxwell - 47

Less than 40 games
Chris Bryan - 16
Travis Cloke - 30
Heath Shaw - 28
Shannon Cox - 0
Brad Dick - 0
Alan Toovey - 0
Dale Thomas - 16
Harry O'Brien - 13
Scott Pendelbury - 9
Chris Egan - 24


100+ games
Kane Johnson - 180
Joel Bowden - 213
Matthew Richardson - 234
Troy Simmonds - 147

40+ games
Chris Newman - 89
Shane Tuck - 47
Kayne Pettifer - 81
Chris Hyde - 69
Graham Polak - 73
Brett Deledio - 43

Less than 40 games
Richard Tambling - 33
Cleve Hughes - 3
Nathan Foley - 27
Luke McGuane - 2
Daniel Jackson - 21
Danny Meyer - 14
Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls - 4
Kel Moore - 17
Andrew Raines - 29
Jake King - 0
Matthew White - 11
Jay Schulz - 37

 

[lookkg386]

Daniel Jackson - 21


HE'S ONE THAT GOT A WHOLE SEASON OF CHANCES, MUST NOT PLAY AGAIN IF WE ARE TRULY MOVING FORWARD!!!

 

[Harpoon]

This is a very good thread. Puts things into perspective for me. I understand the situation a lot better. Thanks!

Any further explanation of when we can expect our 40+ and <40 gamers to be at their prime would be appreciated.

 

[IDGAF]

If you look at the way we drafted from 99 to 03 it`s no wonder ... and Frawley has the nerve to say that he has nothing to do with the shape the club is in now

 

[Port_GW]

Wasn't sure which thread to put this one, but whats happenning with Shane Edwards at the moment, i presume hes injured because i thought he would have been named for this week's game. Stick with this youngster, it'll pay dividends in years to come.