Yes, 3 goals won't win games - unless you are talking soccer or hockey.

99 times out of 100, 8 goals won't win games either.

lol, i think this stupidity needs to be my new signature at the bottom of my profile.

happy trolling!

happy trolling!

i wish.

I think whilst 3 goals is not great... Using pathetic is very harsh... When you consider were our club has come from less than 12mths ago.... You remember 100pt floggings! Players wanting to leave....

Look at the positives long term..... We have drafted well with Tyson/Salem ... Players like pedderson & watts playing better! Players are wanting to stay as development & culture occurring!

The game plan if executed correctly & stop the turnovers will result in wins....

Listen to Bomber Thompson on 360 saying Roos is teaching the players on how to win finals football!

Perspective needed here... A train wreck is not fixed over nite!

Sometimes I get the feeling Roos got his basic philosophy from traditional Italian soccer. Their national team has never been rated as highly as its opposition but has managed four titles, two runner ups and a couple of semi finals in 17 attempts. They played a style called "Cattenaccio" which does not translate well but means somethings like, "wrapping up your opponent up in chains".

The basic philosphy was to beat superior opponents with an inferior side when it counted the most. Winning was the be all and end all. To play this game they gave up on their abilty to score goals freely as long as they stopped the opposition scoring at all. This was supplemented by hard uncomprimising physical tactics to unerve the most talented and skilled oposition. Even when they were eventually beaten it was always a tough ugly bruising encounter.

Curiously now that they have given up on this style of of ugly defensive play they don't seem to be as effective and feared as they used to be.

Nutbean - just in response to our discussion

I don't have a problem with our game plan or the direction of the club - I am not whinging about only kicking 3 goals - I am 100% on your side for that argument.

My point was (I probably explained badly) I felt from the Media build up towards the game that the players were getting a little ahead of themselves. I'm all for media hype but I thought we went about it wrong. We're 3 - 7 before the game. We were a chance but no where near the quality of the Pies.

I want to see W's not words...... There is still a lot of work to do before we really start building the hype IMO... (I understand the club wanted 80k at the G) but I really thought a few players in the media go ahead of themselves - That's what I am angry at.... especially being 3-8 and 15th on the ladder.

I feel pi$$ed off they're telling me to support them after 4 years of rubbish - I want consistent results from them, then they'll see me at the ground every week....

I support the boys and the direction of the club - I repeat I just thought the club was getting ahead of itself out of desperation for attendance - it should have been handled better - or maybe am I expecting too much? We want to be a big player in the league then we need to handle the media and expectations a lot better.... Otherwise I am [censored] they tell me to turn up and serve that up on Monday (The anger is justified)

Nutbean - just in response to our discussion

I don't have a problem with our game plan or the direction of the club - I am not whinging about only kicking 3 goals - I am 100% on your side for that argument.

My point was (I probably explained badly) I felt from the Media build up towards the game that the players were getting a little ahead of themselves. I'm all for media hype but I thought we went about it wrong. We're 3 - 7 before the game. We were a chance but no where near the quality of the Pies.

I want to see W's not words...... There is still a lot of work to do before we really start building the hype IMO... (I understand the club wanted 80k at the G) but I really thought a few players in the media go ahead of themselves - That's what I am angry at.... especially being 3-8 and 15th on the ladder.

I feel pi$$ed off they're telling me to support them after 4 years of rubbish - I want consistent results from them, then they'll see me at the ground every week....

I support the boys and the direction of the club - I repeat I just thought the club was getting ahead of itself out of desperation for attendance - it should have been handled better - or maybe am I expecting too much? We want to be a big player in the league then we need to handle the media and expectations a lot better.... Otherwise I am [censored] they tell me to turn up and serve that up on Monday (The anger is justified)

They had to spruik - we need 70,000 plus crowds. It would have done more for our cause if we had played like we did against Adelaide but it wasn't to be.

Where i disagree with you is that "you want to see consistent results from them, then they'll see me at the ground ever week".

I have seen one and a half games where we have not been consistent in what Roos is teaching or not improved ( Eagles and GWS).

So I don't think we have got ahead ourselves and even though it wasn't a great performance Monday, I reflect on the amount of posters who last year openly admitted on here that they had better things to do with their weekends than watch the trainwreck which was the MFC. I haven't seen any of that commentary this year at all and I am expecting a better crowd at the G this week than we got last year.

I can't speak for the majority but IMO you may be in the minority of those who were "[censored] they tell me to turn up and serve that up on Monday (The anger is justified)"

They had to spruik - we need 70,000 plus crowds. It would have done more for our cause if we had played like we did against Adelaide but it wasn't to be.

Where i disagree with you is that "you want to see consistent results from them, then they'll see me at the ground ever week".

I have seen one and a half games where we have not been consistent in what Roos is teaching or not improved ( Eagles and GWS).

So I don't think we have got ahead ourselves and even though it wasn't a great performance Monday, I reflect on the amount of posters who last year openly admitted on here that they had better things to do with their weekends than watch the trainwreck which was the MFC. I haven't seen any of that commentary this year at all and I am expecting a better crowd at the G this week than we got last year.

I can't speak for the majority but IMO you may be in the minority of those who were "[censored] they tell me to turn up and serve that up on Monday (The anger is justified)"

This is the first season after 7 seasons from hell, where we have shown some commitment to the contest and witnessed substantial signs of improvement. As it is the first season in a long time since we have seen this, it is going to be a case of one step forward two steps back, at least in the short term. I would rather that, than the tripe served up particularly under Neeld.

While not wanting to predict results, I reckon our 2nd half of the season will see some more encouraging displays, before the year is out.

They had to spruik - we need 70,000 plus crowds. It would have done more for our cause if we had played like we did against Adelaide but it wasn't to be.

Where i disagree with you is that "you want to see consistent results from them, then they'll see me at the ground ever week".

I have seen one and a half games where we have not been consistent in what Roos is teaching or not improved ( Eagles and GWS).

So I don't think we have got ahead ourselves and even though it wasn't a great performance Monday, I reflect on the amount of posters who last year openly admitted on here that they had better things to do with their weekends than watch the trainwreck which was the MFC. I haven't seen any of that commentary this year at all and I am expecting a better crowd at the G this week than we got last year.

I can't speak for the majority but IMO you may be in the minority of those who were "[censored] they tell me to turn up and serve that up on Monday (The anger is justified)"

While I get the sense that nutbean is the kind of bloke who fails to flush a toilet after he uses it, got to support this 100%.

Talking to a friend who asked what it was like to watch such negative footy, I realised: when it's my own team I'm so invested that game style means little in regards to my enjoyment of the game. A 30 point loss 120-90 would have been as painful as the one we got this week. Wouldn't care at all if we were routinely winning games in the 10 goal range.

Roosy was clear that he's looking for a better balance in the long run, but right now it's about establishing a defensive foundation that we can build from.

I guess a positive you can take out of it was that most of the game was played on our terms really. We forced the scrap congestion play taking collingwood out of their preferred game style. All though they still beat us, at least we made an impact on the game unlike previous years.

This is the first season after 7 seasons from hell, where we have shown some commitment to the contest and witnessed substantial signs of improvement. As it is the first season in a long time since we have seen this, it is going to be a case of one step forward two steps back, at least in the short term. I would rather that, than the tripe served up particularly under Neeld.

While not wanting to predict results, I reckon our 2nd half of the season will see some more encouraging displays, before the year is out.

I hope you mean two steps forward and one step back. Your version was what we had to put up with in 2012 and 2013.

As it is the first season in a long time since we have seen this, it is going to be a case of one step forward two steps back, at least in the short term.

Even further to this point - I don't think we took a step backwards on Monday - we definitely didn't kick enough goals and butchered the ball but our defensive structures held up well. A performance like we served up against the Eagles would have been a step backwards.

I am pleasantly surprised because I expected more "frailty" from our players and expected some progress interlaced with some hammerings. Besides the Eagles the hammerings haven't materialised.

We kicked 4 goals, that one was disallowed by a very negligent umpire is of concern.

Had it been allowed as it should have been and we ended up 4 points down who knows how the rest of the game may have unfolded.

That stupid umpiring decision was the real turning point to the game.

Who was the umpire? I trust he'll be confined to goal umpiring in the north west Darwin Development League next weekend!

very simply put: we have been slowly improving, and been very solid for a month, we had a bit of a dip in that improvement this week. You can't expect a constant, unbroken, upward trajectory without exceptions. This year, e might only end up 3 spots or so higher than last year but I am very confident we will play finals next year. You have to take a long term view

WJ's match preview from last week just about covered it. Timely.

99 times out of 100, 8 goals won't win games either.

This it.

We held a team who averages nearly a 100 points a game to 60 odd. That's a big win I feel.

The fact we scored bugger all clearly wasn't but at least we can all see improvement overall and if Vince's goal was counted who knows what could of happened.

I hope you mean two steps forward and one step back. Your version was what we had to put up with in 2012 and 2013.

The only steps I saw then were all backwards ............ full speed

Well i watched the replay for the first time today and it's not that often that people can say this but the maggots certainly cost us 3 goals*. That takes us to 6 goals.

They also gave Collingwood 2 goals** with their ridiculous interpretations of the rules. That makes the game very different in the last 5 minutes.

* 1. Dawes' non-50m penalty. 2. Bernie's disallowed goal and 3. that ridiculous 'high' tackle by JKH in our forward pocket which should have been holding the ball for ducking his head and not attempting to get it out of the contest.

** 1. Swan refusing to move back to the mark despite being asked 3 times by the maggot on Gawn's kickout after he marked on the goal line. Admittedly, Gawn should have waited until he was given his rightful space but his cramped kick went 40m straight back to Collingwood who promptly sent it back over his head for a goal. 2. The no call on Howe having his head ripped off by Cloke in the 4th quarter which also spilled the pack and resulted in a goal (snd then the Pies got another one when Jetta made even less contact in a marking contest 5 minutes later to make it even worse).

Umpires were riDICKulous

I agree with that, add Vince's goal that wasn't aloud and an extra meter on Peterson's kick and we are in the game.

What I'm trying to say is the game felt a lot closer then what the score board said it did.

The boys gave 100% from start to finish and I feel we are very much on the right track.

It was an honorably lose and thats all I asked for in 2014.

2015 is a different story.

And Frawley was not awarded an obvious 50 metre penalty in the third quarter which would have put him in the goal square. Yes, we should have kicked a few more goals although not enough to win.

As the game resets after every goal it is really quite irrelevant to how many goals we were denied. Because if we just got one of them then everything happening afterwards would be different. Up until early last quarter we only needed one of those missed opportunities to give us a chance to win. A few were our fault for not converting gettable shots. and several were umpiring mistakes. As the game was so tight it made it nigh on impossible once they got 2+ goals up. We just did not have the fire power to score 3+ goals quickly. If we could have kept their lead under 2 goals we would have been a decent chance to pinch it late.

I could see Roos tactics in what he was trying. But all the cards had to fall right. Opportunities needed to be taken. Forward defensive pressure had to be optimal. I don't think he would have foreseen that poor umpiring would have been a factor though.

The Roos style make umpiring errors more significant. In a low scoring game, the power of the umpire to award a free kick has greater significance. Think of it like the power of a penalty spot kick in soccer. In such a low scoring affair, such a decision can determine a game. Similarly, by playing an ultra-defensive, low scoring style of game, the impact of the decisions of the umpires increases. Of course, it's 50:50 whether we may be the beneficiaries or the sufferers in any game - but by accepting Roos as coach we have to also accept that umpiring decisions have the potential to have a greater impact on the final result.