I'm confused, Redders. Are you saying Collingwood were in training loads as per the Fly quote, but we weren't? Or are you saying that regardless of the training load, we shouldn't have lost to Norf? Because I don't think you'll get any arguments there. I don't see anyone mounting one. This all seems to have started because I said it looked to me like we had heavy legs in the Norf game. I didn't state it as fact, just said that's what it looked like to me, and wondered. Ridicule and scorn flowed thereafter.Injuries, age, poor form, midfield or whatever. I can accept those better as excuses ….but training loads ? Cmon. Against a laughable last place side like Norf ? Couple of bridges too far for me I’m afraid. (666 is still the best excuse I’ve heard though.)
Hammies are often a sign of increased loads. It's not just our blokes doing them - half the Brisbane list did hammies a few weeks ago. Fly has said Collingwood was loading, Scott said Geelong did it (although IMO to taper off and peak against us and Melbourne). The last three rounds have seen several anomalous results amongst the contenders: Carlton kicked 10.18 and lost to St Kilda, Sydney were overrun by Esserdun, Brisbane were overrun at home by Esserdun, our two losses and Collingwood's two lucky wins (and third narrow escape). Is it really that "nonsensical" as some keep saying? It's convention, isn't it? Don't we see this every year, six or so weeks out from the finals?
I think we could all do with a win tonight.
