We must continue to look at the facts

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Did anyone else notice that twice when Jurrah kicked goals no MFC players rushed to congratulate him. He had to approach a couple of players himself for a high five. I just thought at the time this looked odd and they weren't playing for each other. And this was when we were doing well.

Maybe I was reading too much into it?

when Tappy kicked that huge goal most of the side went to him and Trengove was first of course

[The Chazz 4,077]

when Tappy kicked that huge goal most of the side went to him and Trengove was first of course

Which game was that?

If youu're getting flogged, it's hard to get pumped up about anyone kicking a goal, but you just have to find something. It is also vital that when you have momentum that ALL players get invovled in some manner. Doing this helps keep momentum as it puts doubts in the oppositions minds.

I think it was early in the last quarter on Saturday when Maric kicked a goal, and there was no celebration whatsoever. Ok, we were getting flogged in play, but on the scoreboard, it was still achievable, but that's an attitude/belief thing.

I'm sure Bailey will get the blame for his players not wanting to congratulate their teammates when they kick a goal, it seems he is responsible for everything else.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

And I'll take Green out of our equation. Snap.

Stats are like Shakira's hips, they don't lie.

Taking Boomer AND Green out you get average games played ...

Roos: 66.86

Demons: 49.68

And these....

Average games played for players in the following experience categories. Note: I've take the most inexperienced (0-49 games), Next rung up 50 - 99 and the most experienced (100+ games). Can't afford time to split into 150 - 199 etc and frankly there isn't enough players from either team to make the stats meaningful so haven't included these carve outs. Happy to supply excel spreadsheet if needed. But listening to Mick on Sunday, he reckons that most players aren't truly up for the rigours of 4 full quarters of full on footy at AFL level until he has at least 100 games under his belt...so that's why i've used 100+ games for the experienced category. Not very scientific i realise but i think Micks a much better judge (obviously) than i am lol (and saves me time too!):

0-49 Games Played (Average/Number of Players)

Roos: 21.40* / 10

Demons: 26.15^ / 13

*Most inexperienced - Harper, 3 Games

^Most inexperienced - Tapscott, 7 Games

50-99 Games Played (Average/Number of Players)

Roos: 69.33 / 6

Demons: 76.60 / 5

100+ Games Played (Average/Number of Players)

Roos: 191.50* / 6

Demons: 149.25^ / 4

*Most experienced - Harvey, 308 games played

^Most experienced - Green, 227 games played

Cheers Deminions

P.S. Thanks to Sweetman for original stats. Oh, if anyone's interested... i'll probably do this for myself prior to each match once teams are out and IF i have the time. I can post if you want when done...or supply spreadsheet.

B)

Edited May 17, 2011 by Rusty Nails

[rpfc 28,736]

Trouble is, last year we were mostly pretty good, but awful in patches - usually against teams that did their homework against us.

This year we're mostly pretty awful, but good in patches. That's the difference.

Revisionist history.

Let me add to that earlier post.

We were awful in patches last year, and we were bad for a plurality of time last year, and we good in patches last year.

Relive history...

Pathetic effort against Hawthorn. Pathetic effort against Hawthorn?

Great effort against Collingwood.

We nearly lost at home to a depleted and awful Adelaide - who kicked 5 goals on the day! The Brisbane game this year?

We went goalless for a qtr against Richmond when we flogged them. The third qtr against GC?

The Brisbane game at the G. The GC game?

Rubbish effort against NM at Etihad. Rubbish effort against NM at Etihad?

Goalless first qtr against WB.

Pathetic effort against WCE at home. Same but in Perth?

Conceded 8 goals in last qtr against Port after dominating game.

Thrashed at Skilled Stadium.

Pantsed by Carlton at the G.

Draw aginst a wayward Collingwood. Draw against a wayward Sydney?

Embarrassed by Adelaide over there.

Easily handled by St Kilda at Etihad.

Conceded 6 goals to Essendon in the last after dominating.

3 goals to HT against Freo over there before rallying. 6 of ten goals kicked in one qtr.

The Sydney game. The Adelaide game?

2 goals after HT in win against Brisbane up there.

6 goal last qtr required to get past Richmond.

Effort against Hawthorn good until last in wet.

Awful effort agianst Port over there.

Effort against NM acceptable until last.

More patheticness than dominance and a plurality of competitiveness (and doesn't everyone hate that word...).

We were bad last year...

Edited May 17, 2011 by rpfc

[rpfc 28,736]

Akum?

You can see how pathetic we were at times last year, can't you?

It's too early to gauge any improvement in 2011.

[Akum 2,660]

Revisionist history.

Let me add to that earlier post.

We were awful in patches last year, and we were bad for a plurality of time last year, and we good in patches last year.

....

More patheticness than dominance and a plurality of competitiveness (and doesn't everyone hate that word...).

We were bad last year...

You seriously equate the win against a 4-0 Brisbane last year with the win against GC this year? Maybe Adelaide this year equates to Brisbane last year, but last year we did it again against Sydney, and it was when both those sides were going through their best times of the season. And I agree that the Collingwood performances last year have been over-valued, but by the same token it's difficult to equate a draw and a close loss against the eventual premier with a draw against a competent but hardly outstanding team like 2011 Sydney.

And I don't know about you, but to me it's really poor that we've learned absolutely nothing from two of our worst performances last year against NM & WC - lI'd like to think that some day we won't be North's [censored] any more.

But the biggest difference is that in several games you have "conceded X goals in a quarter after dominating" or "goalless quarter" written off as a bad performance, rather than a good performance with a bad period in it. Similarly with a few where we lost but put up a good fight - WB, Freo over there, Hawthorn at end of year. Together this type of appraisal adds up to 7 or 8 games in 2010 where I'd say "pretty good", you'd say "pretty bad".

And yeah, OK, if you see all those games as "bad games", then we were bad last year and we're no worse so far this year. If you see them as "good games", then we need to improve quite a bit this year to get up to last year's standard.

I'm happy for others to sort out what's revisionism.

[rpfc 28,736]

I'm happy for others to sort out what's revisionism.

Yes, everyone can have their own interpretations.

Unfortunately, there are many that must have taped the Sydney game from last year, watched it over and over in the summer, and raised their expectations through the roof.

The Demons of 2010 were not better than the version of the Demons in 2011.

It's too early to measure improvement.

Yes, we have been sh!t this year, but we were sh!t last year too.

[Sweetman 31]

To further expand the dabate I have listed teams who I see as our contemporaries in terms of development. Richmond is the only team who matches us in terms of lack of experience.

Melb vs Nth.htm

[Rogue 585]

Unfortunately, there are many that must have taped the Sydney game from last year, watched it over and over in the summer, and raised their expectations through the roof.

Indeed - that match was raised so many times by Melbourne supporters prior to the 2011 season starting.

[45HG 1,559]

Indeed - that match was raised so many times by Melbourne supporters prior to the 2011 season starting.

Luckily I taped the W.C. game and watched that repeatedly over the summer.

I deleted it after the bye...