McGrath stiff. Reckon he was the only player who didn’t fumble the ball on a wet night
Good problem to have if guys can play a game as good as he played (or Hurley, for that matter) and not get a vote.
Apart from the 4 votes he got from one of them?
Must have been Worsfold!
Zaharakis also didn’t fumble!!!
2 Likes
Great to see Ridley so high up. Still can’t speak highly enough of the game he played.
2 Likes
Pesky facts.
Fk them black and white fks
Brilliant analysis, much appreciated.
I spent the previous weekend half-trolling a Pies mate that Mumford > Grundy. Despite being +59 in the hit outs vs Mumford in the Prelim, and racking up 10 clearances, the Pies were utterly smashed in the middle that day (-19 clearances). To add spice, despite recruiting Jacobs in the off season with Mumford looking pretty well cooked, Jacobs was dropped for the rematch - in affect Cameron chose to send in the man who had conceded the biggest hit out differential of all time.
I had put it down to Mumford’s physical presence intimidating the Collingwood on ball brigade, but that clearly wasn’t the case with Philips. Never the less, the net impact was much the same - Grundy reduced to playing a loan hand while the Collingwood midfield under performs.
2 Likes
Yeah I thought he was about the only thing keeping us from a 6 goal deficit early on. Nothing flashy, but was just in everything, looked like the only one trying.
As the game wore on others lifted.
1 Like
Or 2 and 2
Or 3 and 1
Touche
Not even a little bit of love for Phillips?
Disappointing.
6 Likes
Not possible. Two guys have already got 1’s.
No more 1’s
Grundy got a 2
So there is only one more 2 to be allocated
Hooker must have got a 3 then
So the only possibility is that the two 4’s had to be one 4 and nothing from the other coach
So that leaves Ridley as a 3 and 2
3 Likes
Doesn’t count when you only get the ball once or twice…
Sensational memory (as usual). How you can remember Trevor Heath’s no. I do not know. Bits and pieces of that trigger memories for me. (Pirouet #9 maybe?). But strangely, I can distinctly remember Peter Daniel switching from full back to full forward for a while, with some success.
I think it’s the highest number ever worn by a senior Essendon play.
I used to argue with @Mero that Robin Close may have worn it in his first game, but he assured me that he was given #19 before taking the field.
Pirouet was indeed #9, but unfortunately did not move like a ballet dancer.
Those years of the early 70’s were scarred into my memory. For all Tuddy’s faults, he did get players who had previously played with little heart firing again. And young guys like Fields, Roberts and Cassin gave the team some oomph.
For some I missed, Ian Anderson wore #57, then mainly #25. Kicked 7 round 1 in 1968, and a great memory was him tapping a centre bounce to Bobby Greenwood at the beginning of the last quarter and Greenwood drop kicked it through the goals almost onto Raleigh St. Huddo kicked 10 but we won by 12. Great wasted talent, Greenwood. Did his knee and was never the same again. Ray Smith was #35, Stuart Barclay #37.
I think this is fairly typical but I remember the sixties and seventies better than I remember some of the last 20 years.
Some other names from that era who played only a few games were John May (#55), Michael Bates (#49), Alan Graco (#52), Andrew Radchenko (#29), Tom Park (also #29 - crowded locker, that one), Vic Papp (#46), Gary Fitzpatrick (#7).
2 Likes
l remember that as well, he was a good high mark.
Yes_thats_the_joke.jpg
Bryan Pirouet sounds like an incidental character in a Micallef bit.
Sensational name.
1 Like