Analysis Are we flying under the radar?

[manicpie]

really - they have 3 stars in Warner, Gulden and Heeney, then the list drops off dramatically.
Those 3 got them to the GF with some amazing performances, but were well held in the GF and the rest of the team didnt give a yelp.
I think Swans are hugely over rated - I don't fear them.

Spot on and when sides put work into those 3 later in the year, Sydney struggled

 

[anshell]

Yes I believe it is now
Yeah
Yeah

I agree.Sydney’s got some guns in the midfield,but then their list tails off after that.Their backline is just average,and their forward line,as we saw in the grand final,is below average.Their bottom six is considerably worse than ours as well,

 

[cfc19902010]

Yes Heeney was great but umpires swung the game IMO
In close games they do affect results especially with a string of shockers in a row against us in that last quarter

 

[swoop42]

We were.

Then we landed Houston.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes I believe it is now
Yeah
Yeah

Write down a Sydney side and then write down our side fully fit. We have just as good a side as Sydney or anyone else

Well if you're both certain our list is just as good, then go into detail and convince me.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Mate, I'm honoured to be thought of as a resident footy brain, and to be mentioned alongside some of those other posters you listed.

The fact is, I've just been bluffing my way through this, and have very little idea about anything.
I'm most likely wrong, most of the time.

So, with that being the case, we will not be winning the premiership for at least 5 years.

'Bluffing' lol

 

[Carringbush2010]

really - they have 3 stars in Warner, Gulden and Heeney, then the list drops off dramatically.
Those 3 got them to the GF with some amazing performances, but were well held in the GF and the rest of the team didnt give a yelp.
I think Swans are hugely over rated - I don't fear them.

Do you not rate players like Papley, Adams, Grundy, Hayward, Rowbottom, Florent, Mills, Fox, Rampe, Wicks, Blakey, Parker, Reid?

Just off the top of my head.

If you do rate them, how do you rate them?

For mine that list bats pretty deep, they have quality in every position and want for nothing.

I think this argument that our list can stack up against THE very best (not saying Syd are btw) in the comp is fool hardy.

We don't need to, we have system that when on song, no other team can match

 

[sr36]

Well if you're both certain our list is just as good, then go into detail and convince me.

We're stronger in the air. McStay, Checkers, Moore, Howe, Cameron and Cox are a much stronger marking group in terms of both intercepting and contesting up forward.

We've got stronger flankers.

Last season their midfield was miles above ours - absolutely awesome. But a couple had massively career best years - can they keep at that level with the additional attention? And hopefully we'll have some mids back to close the gap anyway.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Amartey isn’t that good

Agreed

Our forwards are much better

Collectively, it's up for debate though, their forward line up is not chump change

Pap smear disappears like a ghost in big games

Well you could argue the whole team does, I'm not convinced this is a Papley flaw, no worse than any other in that team imo

We had them on toast in Sydney with 6-8 best 23 players out in Sydney before the scumpires swung the game
If we have close to best 23 in we are superior especially now with Houston

If you're arguing we had em on toast coz list, well that's an argument you won't take to the footy industry and win.

We've just won a flag without the best list, we've flags in the past you could argue we didn't have the best list, 1990 for example. The cornerstone of our success is TEAM not list.

This is not what the thread is about anyway.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We're stronger in the air. McStay, Checkers, Moore, Howe, Cameron and Cox are a much stronger marking group in terms of both intercepting and contesting up forward.

We've got stronger flankers.

Last season their midfield was miles above ours - absolutely awesome. But a couple had massively career best years - can they keep at that level with the additional attention? And hopefully we'll have some mids back to close the gap anyway.

All of that is up for debate, McDonald, Grundy, McCartin and Reid come to mind for aerial strength.

Agree on flankers, we have depth there like Jaicos, Sides and Wilbur if need be, and to be bolstered down the track (hopefully) with Hayes.

The season just past, one could confidently argue Syd has a better midfield than ours. That may change with the acquisition of Perryman, it frees up Naicos, Pendles, Crisp and Jordy to do their thing.

That doesn't make the mid list 'better' than Syd's it just makes it more flexible and versatile than what it currently is.

Player v player, it's very hard to argue we have as good a list as Sydney's. The footy world would confidently argue otherwise.

But that's ok, we've proven we don't need THE best list to win the whole box and dice anyway.

 

[sr36]

All of that is up for debate, McDonald, Grundy, McCartin and Reid come to mind for aerial strength.

Agree on flankers, we have depth there like Jaicos, Sides and Wilbur if need be, and to be bolstered down the track (hopefully) with Hayes.

The season just past, one could confidently argue Syd has a better midfield than ours. That may change with the acquisition of Perryman, it frees up Naicos, Pendles, Crisp and Jordy to do their thing.

That doesn't make the mid list 'better' than Syd's it just makes it more flexible and versatile than what it currently is.

Player v player, it's very hard to argue we have as good a list as Sydney's. The footy world would confidently argue otherwise.

But that's ok, we've proven we don't need THE best list to win the whole box and dice anyway.

Grundy can't mark. Do you mean Sam Reid?.if so does he still play? Was a really good mark when he was occasionally fit- McDonald is a lead mark player - doesn't take many contested marks or compete well in a pack. McCartin is excellent. Us comfortably in the air.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Grundy can't mark. Do you mean Sam Reid?.if so does he still play? Was a really good mark when he was occasionally fit- McDonald is a lead mark player - doesn't take many contested marks or compete well in a pack. McCartin is excellent. Us comfortably.

Grundy can't mark? Really?

Look I think we need to put this list argument to bed, tbh if you take the argument to the footyworld it's likely the opinion is that Syd has a better list. It's not what the op is about anyway.

We here in our Collingwood silo have good argument to oppose those opinions, but let's face it we'll have bias in our argument.

I'm not arguing we don't have a great list, it's pretty phuqin good, as it stands right now it's a flag contender.

But let's not pretend it's THE best list in it, which was my original point. We don't need it to be anyway, we've just proven that with a flag without THE best list.

 

[sr36]

Grundy can't mark? Really?

Look I think we need to put this list argument to bed, tbh if you take the argument to the footyworld it's likely the opinion is that Syd has a better list. It's not what the op is about anyway.

We here in our Collingwood silo have good argument to oppose those opinions, but let's face it we'll have bias in our argument.

I'm not arguing we don't have a great list, it's pretty phuqin good, as it stands right now it's a flag contender.

But let's not pretend it's THE best list in it, which was my original point. We don't need it to be anyway, we've just proven that with a flag without THE best list.

I didn't say I thought we had the best list - just better than Sydney's.

I'd have us, GWS and Brissie as the most complete teams for the different phases of the game. It'd be Brissie clear at top in my opinion if Daniher hadn't retired. He's massive loss. GWS have lost a bit of depth, but I'm assuming they have it covered as they just always seem to have another top draft pick waiting ready to play

Carlton maybe if the Holland's can jump a level and Jagga and the Camporeales come on quickly. Hawks is getting a bit of a worry, but not enough runs on the board yet to rank them with the 3 teams I'd have at the top.

 

[Exambolor]

really - they have 3 stars in Warner, Gulden and Heeney, then the list drops off dramatically.
Those 3 got them to the GF with some amazing performances, but were well held in the GF and the rest of the team didnt give a yelp.
I think Swans are hugely over rated - I don't fear them.

Swans biggest issue all year has been their talls, Amartey, McDonald and McLean were shocking this year bar a couple of big games, just were missing a lot of the game. Yeah they scored but they had no impact that would turn a game when needed. No wonder Heeney and Chad kicked a heap of goals. 30+ for the both of them

The defence is old and tired, outside of Lizard, McCartin and a couple of others.

And of course is a fourth GF loss in a decade gonna break them? Rampe has played in all four losses.

 

[sr36]

Swans biggest issue all year has been their talls, Amartey, McDonald and McLean were shocking this year bar a couple of big games, just were missing a lot of the game. Yeah they scored but they had no impact that would turn a game when needed. No wonder Heeney and Chad kicked a heap of goals. 30+ for the both of them

The defence is old and tired, outside of Lizard, McCartin and a couple of others.

And of course is a fourth GF loss in a decade gonna break them? Rampe has played in all five losses.

Awesome mids, but if it gets tight with kicks down the line, they'd be close to worst in the league in the air.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I didn't say I thought we had the best list - just better than Sydney's.

Well we're getting down to opinion now, Syd's list bats very deep, so I disagree that ours is better than Syd's, there's a few on here that agree with you.

However if you take it to the footy industry, you're pushing the proverbial up hill to argue it.

 

[sr36]

Well we're getting down to opinion now, Syd's list bats very deep, so I disagree that ours is better than Syd's, there's a few on here that agree with you.

However if you take it to the footy industry, you're pushing the proverbial up hill to argue it.

For me it's about strengths in different phases and situations of the game rather than lining up and ranking the individuals. Sydney have a list that can be devastating in an open game, but if it's highly contested, nah, don't want their list.

 

[Carringbush2010]

For me it's about strengths in different phases and situations of the game rather than lining up and ranking the individuals. Sydney have a list that can be devastating in an open game, but if it's highly contested, nah, don't want their list.

Well now you're talking about how the list is used, not how good the players are.

How a FD uses a players best strengths, trade in players for certain roles etc. Like we have with Houston and Perryman for example

In short, system, and the footy industry isn't going to oppose that our system, when it's on, is the bench mark. Myself included.

Ranking the individuals IS ranking the list.

I think this is where the list argument gets confused, when one talks about 'list' their talking about the potential of the players, not how the players are employed in their roles.

 

[sr36]

Well now you're talking about how the list is used, not how good the players are.

How a FD uses a players best strengths, trade in players for certain roles etc. Like we have with Houston and Perryman for example

No I'm not. I'm talking about the skillsets in the playing group. I don't think they have enough blokes who are good in a contest in the air and are borderline in terms of contest in general. However, they're so clean and quick in open play that they're a very good team who can cut teams apart. I think Carlton are the oppositie - outstanding contested group but not many with class to get it really cleanly to the outside or blokes who are damaging on the outside.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No I'm not. I'm talking about the skillsets in the playing group. I don't think they have enough blokes who are good in a contest in the air and are borderline in terms of contest in general. However, they're so clean and quick in open play that they're a very good team. Just as I think Carlton are the oppositie - outstanding contested group but not many with class to get it really cleanly to the outside or blokes who are damaging on the outside.

You've just stated in this reply, about what sort of players they are, i:e how they're used.

You're stating the list imbalances of both teams because of the type of cattle they have, not how good individually those players are, i:e list.

We're getting into a debate about what constitutes 'list'

Mereckons that 'list' is about every individual on that list and how good they are, mereckons that most from footy journos, to footy staffers to Jan and Joe public would define it this way.

We're going down a rabbit hole, debating the definition what 'list' means, you give the impression that list is about the system rather than the players on that list.

Like I said, our 'use' of our 'list' is probably the benchmark, that doesn't equate to we have a better cupboard than Syd though.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Well we're getting down to opinion now, Syd's list bats very deep, so I disagree that ours is better than Syd's, there's a few on here that agree with you.

However if you take it to the footy industry, you're pushing the proverbial up hill to argue it.

Collingwoods list is easily better than Sydney's.
By a bit as well.
Best in the league. A tad better than Brisbane.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Collingwoods list is easily better than Sydney's.
By a bit as well.
Best in the league. A tad better than Brisbane.

Thanks Fatty.

Would you mind elaborating? Could you point to the why our list of players is better than all others?

 

[sr36]

You've just stated in this reply, about what sort of players they are, i:e how they're used.

You're stating the list imbalances of both teams because of the type of cattle they have, not how good individually those players are, i:e list.

We're getting into a debate about what constitutes 'list'

Mereckons that 'list' is about every individual on that list and how good they are, mereckons that most from footy journos, to footy staffers to Jan and Joe public would define it this way.

We're going down a rabbit hole, debating the definition what 'list' means, you give the impression that list is about the system rather than the players on that list.

Like I said, our 'use' of our 'list' is probably the benchmark, that doesn't equate to we have a better cupboard than Syd though.

I'm not sure what you're on about. What sort of player they are, isn't how they're used. It's the other way around.

Most talk about strengths and weaknesses of lists based on player type. If it was just about how good the individual is, about 5 of their regulars wouldn't get a game, but teams pick their team for roles.

It is true though that many would rate Sydney's list higher as many judge lists only by the top few stars.

Pace is the only concern I have with next year's team.

Obviously injuries can derail anyone. As every team is only 3 injuries in one area away from an area going from a strength to a weakness.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not sure what you're on about. What sort of player they are, isn't how they're used. It's the other way around.

Most talk about strengths and weaknesses of lists based on player type. If it was just about how good the individual is, about 5 of their regulars wouldn't get a game, but teams pick their team for roles.

As I've already said, you're viewing 'list' from a role perspective, when I could confidently argue most view 'list' on the potential of the players on that list.

About half a dozen of our regulars wouldn't get a game either going by this logic.

In short, to me, it seems most see 'list' and 'role' as different things.

It is true though that many would rate Sydney's list higher as many judge lists only by the top few stars.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Every team has their top line stars, is our top line better than Syd's? Most would argue not. Do Syd have more top liners? Most would argue yes.

I'm not saying this is fait accompli to be true, just stating that most would view it this way.

But that's not the point I'm making, like you said, most in the footy industry and us punters alike would likely rate Sydney's list higher than ours.

And like I alluded from the op (the point), it's clear that 'list' is not the be all and end all. We've just proven that with a flag that 99% of everyone would not rate our flag winning list as THE best in that season. We used our cattle better than everyone elses, that doesn't equate that we had the best list in it though.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I agree.Sydney’s got some guns in the midfield,but then their list tails off after that.Their backline is just average,and their forward line,as we saw in the grand final,is below average.Their bottom six is considerably worse than ours as well,

Sydney is literally 3 players

Keep them quiet and they're cooked

Easiest team to plan for, not so easy to execute on said plan

We did it for 3 quarters and showed you can build a sizable lead on them when you execute. But those 3 are that good that even our near 5 goal lead wasn't enough.

Brisbane showed that if you maintain? You'll absolutely obliterate them