Without wanting to create a 'media hates us' palava, I've been moderately amused from afar the difference in the media reporting between the Dee's v Richmond game, and the Collingwood v Richmond game. (granted, I'm in perth, so this may have been well covered over there)
Whilst I completely acknowledge that we were insipid against Hawthorn, which is a massive skew in this argument, but that aside, the dee's ran richmond into the 4th quarter, but when we lost by 40 odd points, we were labelled a debacle and 'the most frustrating team in the AFL'.
Collingwood however ran Richmond into the last quarter, and lost by 40 odd points. All I've heard since, was how amazing the Pies were, that they've really showed what a great team they will be, that this needs to be the benchmark for how they should play etc etc.
I guess its a theoretical question about how long do previous games impact peoples perception of a footy club?
With the honourable loss against the cats (I'm not going to whack maxy again), and a Collingwoodesque sustained competitive effort against the tigers, are you allowed one crap game a year? Tigers certainly had one against the saints last year. Or, does that fact that we were crap against hawthorn, and then rolled over against the tiges, make us just crap (as many on here would attest).
Or, if you put the hawks game aside, does this change ones perception of how our season is coming together?
Apologies if this doesn't really makes sense!