Vs Collingwood

[napsyd]

Since I feel it is necessary to tip toe on others boards, here's my thought on this game.

1. Collingwood is not in good form. They played average football at the end of the season and beat an unbelievably soft Port (even Port supporters would vouch for that) in a scrappy and unimpressive game. Let them believe they are great and wonderful. The media are doing a good job in building them up. One game does not change the form card. Their win over Port is as meaningless as our loss to Brisbane.

2. There's a lot of talk about Buckley's influence. Personally I believe that it will be minimal coming back from injury. Their fans believe he will have a blinder. Let them.

3. Their best hope is the intimidation provided by their fans. I don't believe this will effect the Crows, but this remains to be seen. A first quarter like last week will shut their fans down.

4. The last time we played, we were in a mini slump and they were practically at the top of their game. I believe the roles are effectively reversed. The result last time we played is IMO meaningless.

5. The MCG obviously holds no fears for us.

6. We are the underdogs, just the way we like it!

If we retain the form of last week and our last 8 weeks of the home and away season we will beat Collingwood by 5 goals +.

Cheers.

 

[Chelsea]

I agree entirely, I don't think Collingwood are as good as everyone says!

 

[Jars458]

Since 1997 Adelaide and Collingwood have played 8 times

The sides have won 4 games each

The average winning margin is 12 points with no game over 36 point margin.

We have played twice on the MCG - one win each.

Adelaide by 9 points in 98 and Collingwood by 11 points in 2000.

All indicators show its a 50-50 game.

If Stenglein can keep Buckley quiet I think we will win as he has dominated in almost every game between the two sides.

 

[Cyclops]

With all due respect, may I reply to some points?

Collingwood is not in good form.

Adelaide went into the Dees game off a hideous shellacking and came back with pure class. Make no assumptions about form for this match, especially Adelaide's.

Their win over Port is as meaningless as our loss to Brisbane.

So you agree form is irrelevant.

There's a lot of talk about Buckley's influence.

That's the 18th time this month the sun's come up, no way will it come up again tomorrow.

Their best hope is the intimidation provided by their fans.

Like the masses at Footy Park when we beat you this year. Our best hope is that the Crows go into this game thinking they have it in the bag.

The result last time we played is IMO meaningless.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Don't blame form, it is irrelevant. Why did you really lose? What has your coach done to change things?

The MCG obviously holds no fears for us.

Hooray. We are somewhat familiar with the place as well.

We are the underdogs, just the way we like it!

You were the underdogs against Brisbane too. Did that help much? Anyway, the odds reflect Magpie punters' optimism. This match is 50/50.

For me the Crows have an unsurpassed midfield that carries a gallant team and an average coach. We have a fabulous coach and an adequate team. It is a contest between pure class and pure concentration. If we suppress your runners for long enough (through tagging the midfielders or interupting your strong rucks) we will win. No way can we lock all those stars up for the whole match, but if we sit on them for a half, our tall forwards should get us over the line.

To state the bleeding obvious, the two gamebreakers are Bucks and McLeod. Both have injury questions, which I expect they will answer with brilliance. This is the most even match of the finals so far, with the Crow's edge in brilliance and experience equalised by their exhausting recent run and the Pies' superior coach.

May the best side win.

 

[Pies rock]

Collingwood are no good and have no chance. All speculative exercises atm. Just wait til Saturday and see what happens...

 

[Mong]

One game does not change the form card. Their win over Port is as meaningless as our loss to Brisbane.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Collingwood were obviously down on confidence prior to their last game. Regardless of whether it was a soft win or not (which I happen to think it wasn't) the game would've given them a huge amount of confidence going in to the game against the Crows.

Likewise last weeks game would've given our Crows a huge confidence boost. If form can't change around in a week then we are in trouble also. We have played 2 good quarters in the last 8. That is not good form. The difference now is we have confidence (like Collingwood) which is the thing that allows a team to perform at their best.

Last week we turned our form around during the three quarter break, so why can't collingwood do the same over 2 weeks.

Both teams are now full of confidence. Should be a beauty.



4. The last time we played, we were in a mini slump and they were practically at the top of their game. I believe the roles are effectively reversed. The result last time we played is IMO meaningless.

I do agree with most of this comment. Our last meeting is irrelevant. It was a long time ago and things are very different.


6. We are the underdogs, just the way we like it!

Yes we probably are the underdogs but there wouldn't be much in it. Many people would see this as a genuine 50/50 game. Makes it much more exciting.


If we retain the form of last week and our last 8 weeks of the home and away season we will beat Collingwood by 5 goals +.

Don't be blinded by last weeks win, sure I was proud of our performance but there are issues to address. We were convincingly beaten in two of the four quarters. We must not let that happen this week.

 

[powergirlluv17]

I managed to catch the end of Talking Footy after the All Australian Awards last night, to see that Nathan Buckley averages somthing like 30.1 poscessions against adelaide, so stenglien better keep him under wraps!!!

 

[napsyd]

Welcome Cyclops.

I believe that assessing form on a single match is wrong. Assessing form over a period is correct. If Collingwood win this week then I will revise my opinion of their form as it will be starting to show some consistency. Currently the only consistency in Collingwoods recent form is that they were defeated by a number of teams they should have beaten soundly. Hence my assessment.

I doubt the Crows will let themselves believe they have it in the bag. It's not their style and certainly would have made them come unstuck in finals campaigns in the past. There would have to be more danger of this assumption down at Collingwood surely, given the lack of finals experience and the pressure of the entire state on their youthful shoulders. Eddie will practically wet himself tomorrow night, and every writer in the state will talk your lads up. The dangers more in your camp I'd say.

There is little doubt that at the time of the Collingwood loss we were in a form slump. We did not seem to be benefitted by the mid season break for some reason and it took a while for this to resolve. The result is history. Remember Melbourne beat us by a similar margin two weeks prior to the Collingwood game (R14?). Didn't help them in the end either. Undoubtedly we will learn from what happened in R14, but the result itself is of historical reference only.

I would hope the MCG holds no fears for Collingwood, otherwise your lads are in a bitta strife mate!

You believe the match is 50/50. OK. I thought last week was 50/50, that is, I couldn't pick it. I feel this week with both teams playing at recent form, we will win by 5 goals. Just my opinion. And of course I hope I'm correct.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of the coaches. I believe that both are good coaches, with Malthouse taking the honours on track record. I don't really believe there's that much in it though.

Indeed, may the best side win.

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Vs Collingwood

Originally posted by ****
One game does not change the form card. Their win over Port is as meaningless as our loss to Brisbane.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Collingwood were obviously down on confidence prior to their last game. Regardless of whether it was a soft win or not (which I happen to think it wasn't) the game would've given them a huge amount of confidence going in to the game against the Crows.

Likewise last weeks game would've given our Crows a huge confidence boost. If form can't change around in a week then we are in trouble also. We have played 2 good quarters in the last 8. That is not good form. The difference now is we have confidence (like Collingwood) which is the thing that allows a team to perform at their best.

Last week we turned our form around during the three quarter break, so why can't collingwood do the same over 2 weeks.

Both teams are now full of confidence. Should be a beauty.



4. The last time we played, we were in a mini slump and they were practically at the top of their game. I believe the roles are effectively reversed. The result last time we played is IMO meaningless.

I do agree with most of this comment. Our last meeting is irrelevant. It was a long time ago and things are very different.


6. We are the underdogs, just the way we like it!

Yes we probably are the underdogs but there wouldn't be much in it. Many people would see this as a genuine 50/50 game. Makes it much more exciting.


If we retain the form of last week and our last 8 weeks of the home and away season we will beat Collingwood by 5 goals +.

Don't be blinded by last weeks win, sure I was proud of our performance but there are issues to address. We were convincingly beaten in two of the four quarters. We must not let that happen this week.

I thought for a while about your last comment there and I really don't feel my judgements were based on last weeks win.

For the record, I think we thrashed the Dees in the first, were beaten by the Dees in the second, we're thrashed in the third and convincingly won the fourth. What I'm getting at is I believe we really only lapsed in the third quarter. The second was competitive from both teams with the Dees certainly the better team, but we didn't go missing.

So I'd say we played good football for three of the four quarters last week, not two, basing my assessment that you can lose a quarter whilst still playing OK.

Frankly, had the Dees played four quarters last week, we would be talking about the draft right now. But I'm of the opinion that if the Dees played consistent football they would have won the flag this year.

So what was I saying, oh yeah, I'm basing my assessment on more than just last weeks game, or the week before. I'm figuring that apart from one minor glitch we have played consistently good to excellent football for about 10 weeks now. Which is more than can be said of the Woods.

 

[Cyclops]

Originally posted by napsyd
Not sure I agree with your assessment of the coaches. I believe that both are good coaches, with Malthouse taking the honours on track record. I don't really believe there's that much in it though.

Malthouse took a poor side (Footscray) into the finals a couple of times in the 80's, he took a great side (WC) to 10 straight finals series and 2 flags including the first ever interstate flag, and he's taken the bottom side of 1999 with the youngest list in the AFL to fourth and a finals win against the minor premiers. You could say he has a track record, but its more like the road to victory.

Ayres took over two fabulously talented Blight constructed sides. The Cats made the 95 GF on memory and were humiliated. Then he took them out of the finals and they are yet to return as a force.

In his time in Adelaide you have marked time on the fringe of finals contention. You do not win back to back flags by luck, you do it with pure class. Everyone knows Adelaide can play matchless football-that's because they have ace players. You also have a form line like a sine wave. That has to be the coaches fault.

You have had the best or equal best midfield in the AFL for the last 6 years, but have failed to seriously challenge in Ayre's time as coach until now. He has wasted your time.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Cyclops


You have had the best or equal best midfield in the AFL for the last 6 years, but have failed to seriously challenge in Ayre's time as coach until now. He has wasted your time.

Adelaide finished 14th in 1999.

Adeladie finished 12th in 2000

Adelaide finished 8th in 2001

Adelaide will finish 4th or higher in 2002

Do you see a pattern?

Ayres has rebuilt the team after the invetitable let down after back to back flags and the team could win annother flag within four years which would be amazing by AFL standards to win 3 in 6 years.

He is a good coach. Not quite as good as Malthouse I agree, but nevertheless has been great for the Crows.

 

[ant]

Originally posted by Cyclops


Malthouse took a poor side (Footscray) into the finals a couple of times in the 80's, he took a great side (WC) to 10 straight finals series and 2 flags including the first ever interstate flag, and he's taken the bottom side of 1999 with the youngest list in the AFL to fourth and a finals win against the minor premiers. You could say he has a track record, but its more like the road to victory.

Ayres took over two fabulously talented Blight constructed sides. The Cats made the 95 GF on memory and were humiliated. Then he took them out of the finals and they are yet to return as a force.

In his time in Adelaide you have marked time on the fringe of finals contention. You do not win back to back flags by luck, you do it with pure class. Everyone knows Adelaide can play matchless football-that's because they have ace players. You also have a form line like a sine wave. That has to be the coaches fault.

You have had the best or equal best midfield in the AFL for the last 6 years, but have failed to seriously challenge in Ayre's time as coach until now. He has wasted your time.

Not sure about that.....Ayresy took over a rabble in 2000.....we'd just finished 13th, many players were on the decline, a few had retired and there were players on the list that were not up to standard and had no future (Blighty traded and drafted for the here). Ayresy has resurrected the team, given young players with talent an opportunity and revived the careers of a couple of veterans. To say he's wasted our time I feel is incorrect.....rather, he's built a side over the past 3 years, gradually improving our results from 13th to 11th, then 8th last year and 3rd this season.

 

[napsyd]

Yep. What Jars458 said!

We've had a discussion previously about this topic. Blight was brilliant, but also opportunistic IMO. Yes, he won two flags, but he left a shell. He did Ayres no favours in that sense. The structure was still there but the meat was all gone. Players retired, lost the passion, were injured, moved clubs etc etc.

Ayres took the old structure (Hart, Bickley, Riccuito, Johnson, McLeod, Edwards, Goodwin) and is building new flesh on it (Burton, Bode, Ladhams, McGregor, Johnc*ck, Doughty).

Like Collingwood, we were in the doldrums in 1999. Our rise since is similar to your teams. We have been a force this year, but I think we will be more of a force over 2003 and 2004. I simply cannot agree that he has wasted our time.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Cyclops

Like the masses at Footy Park when we beat you this year. Our best hope is that the Crows go into this game thinking they have it in the bag.

The result last time we played is IMO meaningless.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Don't blame form, it is irrelevant. Why did you really lose? What has your coach done to change things?

The MCG obviously holds no fears for us.

Hooray. We are somewhat familiar with the place as well.

We are the underdogs, just the way we like it!

You were the underdogs against Brisbane too. Did that help much? Anyway, the odds reflect Magpie punters' optimism. This match is 50/50.

For me the Crows have an unsurpassed midfield that carries a gallant team and an average coach. We have a fabulous coach and an adequate team. It is a contest between pure class and pure concentration. If we suppress your runners for long enough (through tagging the midfielders or interupting your strong rucks) we will win. No way can we lock all those stars up for the whole match, but if we sit on them for a half, our tall forwards should get us over the line.

To state the bleeding obvious, the two gamebreakers are Bucks and McLeod. Both have injury questions, which I expect they will answer with brilliance. This is the most even match of the finals so far, with the Crow's edge in brilliance and experience equalised by their exhausting recent run and the Pies' superior coach.

May the best side win.

A few observations, if I may.

At round 14, Crows were in the middle of a period of intense training. They have done this sort of thing before, and in those years it caused a similar mini-slump just as it did this year. Pies match in round 14 was the trough of the mini-slump. This is a far better explanation IMO of why Crows lost in round 14 than "Pies played good that day but faded for the rest of the year".

On the AFL website, Sivagni is saying that he would have Ayres as coach of the year, not Malthouse. Interesting. Maybe Silvagni might know something about footy perhaps, one might think?

I can't see how Pies rucks are going to trouble Crows ruck. If Biglands & Clarke deliver first use of the ball to Crows midfield, Pies might find themselves chasing jumper all day. Mind you, Pies have a solid defence, so Crows might be trying to stop Pies defenders rebounding it all day as well.

Mcleod hasn't been a gamebreaker for Crows more than about twice this season. He has been good but not his best virtually all year, and while he has contributed Crows don't rely on him to win games.

Crows are (partly) used to the travel and plan for it. If they were exhausted how did they come from behind to overtake the Demons in the last quarter? Particularly when the Dees have the best record in the competition for last quarters, and the Dees were at home.

I think this game is about 50/50 as well, or perhaps Crows might have a slight edge. I only note that where Crows are weak is in their inconsistency. Not their coach, not their form last time against Pies, and not the travel. IMO.

 

[PrideofSA]

Ayers hasn't wasted our time, each year with Ayers we are improving, and All we need is 1 tall forward, the only thing we have been missing, IMO with Carey, we could be a real show for next years premiership if all goes well, (ie no injuries etc)

 

[Cyclops]

I've heard that nonsense about Blight burning the future to succeed in the present and its wrong. He responded to a Brereton article spouting a defence of his old Hawthorn buddy Ayres. Blight blooded above average numbers of rookies for above average numbers of games, and the young blokes Blight nurtured or selected are now carrying your club. Ayres inferiority to Blight is not Blight's fault.

Consistency is a player management issue. The Crows have been "rebuilt" but there are no champions who were not already champs before Ayres arrived. That is a player development issue.

The Crows are a definite flag chance this year. They have a better shot than Port, and I thought that before the finals began.

If you look at how good the Adelaide core is compared to ours there is a big difference. Our blokes may be that good some day, but now they are not. So how can we be within a bull's roar of you?

1) Malthouse gets more out of his fringe players than Ayres.

2) Malthouse is a better tactical coach and acheives more productive match ups on the day.

3) Malthouse manages more sustained performances over 4 quarters.

 

[napsyd]

Cyclops my friend, please name for me one "expert" who had Adelaide in their final eight this year. You might find one, but that would be about it. That doyen of experts Robert Walls had us at 14th. Practically ALL of them had Collingwood in the eight this year.

I honestly doubt that Blight blooded an above average number of rookies. It was Shaw who actually blooded these players. Blight's brilliant move was to chop dead wood and blokes who were heros at footy park and failures interstate and put together a team that could travel. But as far as blooding players go, you'd be hard pressed to name two or three, let alone any "champions".

You downplay your team deliberately to support your argument about your coach. Our superiority is in the middle only. You have a superior forward line and defence.

And honestly, in the games I've seen this year Collingwoods only consistency over four quarters is it either plays well for four quarters or badly for four quarters.

Developing champions these days is more about luck and your draft picks than about player development. It is difficult to predict exactly how a 16 year old kid will play when he's 20 let alone 25. There are some who stand out but these usually go in the first 5 draft picks, something I believe Adelaide have never had. If you pick a champion, then player development becomes all important.

Finally, your argument about us having no new champions and that this is a bad thing is in direct contrast to your illustrious captain's comments this week. A champion team will beat a team of champions.

We will see who the champion team is on Saturday.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by napsyd

And honestly, in the games I've seen this year Collingwoods only consistency over four quarters is it either plays well for four quarters or badly for four quarters.

Incorrect.

We have only lost 3 games this year because of poor 4 quarter performances - West Coast (in Perth - many teams have done this), Essendon and Geelong.

Equally we have won only a few games with just a quarter of good footy - Adelaide the best example.

We have been very consistent this year - albeit with a form slump late in the season.

 

[PrideofSA]

Originally posted by hotpie


Incorrect.

We have only lost 3 games this year because of poor 4 quarter performances - Fremantle (in Perth - many teams have done this), Essendon and Geelong.

Equally we have won only a few games with just a quarter of good footy - Adelaide the best example.

We have been very consistent this year - albeit with a form slump late in the season.

No u see the Crows will either burst out of the blocks and then just cruise to victory over the next 3 quarters, evenly scoring with the opposition (this has happened many times this year) or We will have a tough match up till half time and then burst away in the 2nd half!

Only some games have we won for the 4 quarters and the games we have lost have been because we haven't generally had any dominant quarters. But u must remember that including the huge loss to Brisbane, we have only lost 2 games by more than 30 points. Goes to show we never givin, as was proven against Melbourne last week!

Even in our mini slump midseason, against WC and Collingwood in sucsession, we were 40 points down at 3 quarter time in both those games yet managed to lose both only by about 20!

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by hotpie


Incorrect.

We have only lost 3 games this year because of poor 4 quarter performances - Fremantle (in Perth - many teams have done this), Essendon and Geelong.

Equally we have won only a few games with just a quarter of good footy - Adelaide the best example.

We have been very consistent this year - albeit with a form slump late in the season.

Perhaps I just watched the wrong games, eh. I thought your performance against the Dogs in R 22 was pretty bad over 4 quarters as well. Started at bad, with a last quarter fade out to shocking.

"You only beat us because we were on a losing streak" .... funny... must use that excuse for our Essendon loss...

Didn't take ya long did it?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by napsyd


Perhaps I just watched the wrong games, eh. I thought your performance against the Dogs in R 22 was pretty bad over 4 quarters as well. Started at bad, with a last quarter fade out to shocking.



Didn't take ya long did it?

We lost to the dogs in a dead rubber we were happy to lose to "clinch" 4th spot - we were 13 points up halfway through the 3rd quarter so played ok that day considering we didn't want to win..


Can you explain to me where I made excuses about our Essendon loss? I said it was one of a few games this year where we played badly for four quarters.

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by Cyclops
I've heard that nonsense about Blight burning the future to succeed in the present and its wrong. He responded to a Brereton article spouting a defence of his old Hawthorn buddy Ayres. Blight blooded above average numbers of rookies for above average numbers of games, and the young blokes Blight nurtured or selected are now carrying your club.

Players blooded by Malcolm Blight as Crows coach:

1997
Aaron Keating
Simon Goodwin
Tom Gilligan
Tim Cook
Chad Rintoul

1998
Nathan Bassett
Andrew Eccles
Lance Picioane
Ian Perrie
Linden Stevens
Sudjai Cook
Ben Marsh

1999
Brodie Atkinson
Lucas Herbert
Matthew Golding
Brett Burton
Darryl Wintle
Bryan Beinke
David Gallagher
Dean Howard
Ken McGregor
Tyson Stenglein

Goodwin's a gun. Stenglein, Burton, Bassett and McGregor are regulars, Beinke is a fringe player, and Marsh and Perrie are still just on the list.

And considering Stenglein only played 1 game, McGregor 2 and McGregor 3 before Blight pulled the pin, the idea that the youngsters that Blight blooded are carrying the Adelaide Football Club in 2002 bemuses me.

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by hotpie



We lost to the dogs in a dead rubber we were happy to lose to "clinch" 4th spot - we were 13 points up halfway through the 3rd quarter so played ok that day considering we didn't want to win..


Can you explain to me where I made excuses about our Essendon loss? I said it was one of a few games this year where we played badly for four quarters.

Losing streak, form slump, you say potato, I say potarto...

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by hotpie



We lost to the dogs in a dead rubber we were happy to lose to "clinch" 4th spot - we were 13 points up halfway through the 3rd quarter so played ok that day considering we didn't want to win..

So let me get this right. You think Collingwood lost the last game against the Bulldogs deliberately so that they could finish 4th, not third? That is a stupid thing to say.

Why would you want to finish 4th when a win could've possibly gotten you 3rd depending on the Crows result.

I guarantee you that Malthouse wanted to win that game. A coach like him doesn't play to lose.

 

[kristin5]

Originally posted by ****



So let me get this right. You think Collingwood lost the last game against the Bulldogs deliberately so that they could finish 4th, not third? That is a stupid thing to say.

Why would you want to finish 4th when a win could've possibly gotten you 3rd depending on the Crows result.

I guarantee you that Malthouse wanted to win that game. A coach like him doesn't play to lose.

Finishing 4th guaranteed us a home preliminary final (if we got that far) - if we had've finished 3rd and all the results in the finals went according to ladder position, we would've had to travel interstate for the prelim. Of course we preferred to finish 4th, given this scenario (I am not saying this is the right approach - I would've preferred it that we went into the finals with some form...)