We're kidding ourselves!

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

55 minutes ago, Chris said:

So then we would be comparing ourselves to the Lions, Saints and Suns who we are ahead of, and the Dogs and GWS who we are behind but they have both had a few more years of development under good development coaches. Out of those only the Lions have a younger and more inexperienced list, but in saying that the team that takes the field is actually older and more experienced than ours. 

Chris, you've taken a phrase out of the sentence concerned and used it in the wrong context.  W

Quote

Like I have said on other posts, are we that unique, that comparisons to other clubs, with similar lists, doesn't bear scrutiny

That is what I said.

Edited June 1, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Jara 1,153]

I don't quite understand all of this statistics stuff. Seems a bit deceptive to me. It's presumably based on the games we've played thus far, but the number of goals you've scored/conceded etc must depend upon who you've played. I reckon we've had a pretty easy run so far - the tough games are still to come - so I presume our rankings will go down. 

 

Find it hard to get excited about stats - I just like winning games - and I can't see too much more of that happening. Great that we've won five, but I fear that, come season's end, I'll be disappointed, yet again. Collingwood will be the bell wether for me - if we beat em again, that will probably give me enough pleasure to tide me over.

[Chris 2,892]

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Chris, you've taken a phrase out of the sentence concerned and used it in the wrong context.  W

hat I said was "Like I have said on other posts, are we that unique, that comparisons to other clubs, with similar lists, doesn't bear scrutiny"

Maybe I got your comment around the wrong way. Were you saying we should compare ourselves to the teams I listed, as they are similar? I get a bit jaded in here due to the mass negativity after a loss and think everyone is going all out and asking why we aren't Hawthorn yet.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

43 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

If sub AFL standard is the average or mid point of those teams ie., 9th/10th then we are certainly below that mid point (standard).

If you can use the same graph to debunk SWY's theory that we are not Sub AFL standard defensively, and offensively we are in the 'top tier' (ie., singling out the Y axis part for 'average points for'), then it is also perfectly fine for someone to use the same graph to show that we are sub AFL standard (ie., below average/sub par @ 13th) defensively.

This is the contention - I don't think being below average/median makes us "sub-AFL standard" - I take sub-AFL standard to mean below the level required to compete in the AFL. No one is arguing we can't do better but we are definitely doing well enough to compete.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Just now, Chris said:

Maybe I got your comment around the wrong way. Were you saying we should compare ourselves to the teams I listed, as they are similar? I get a bit jaded in here due to the mass negativity after a loss and think everyone is going all out and asking why we aren't Hawthorn yet.

No Chris, I consider, at the present time, the Lions, Essendon, GCS, Port and I thought like many, at the beginning of the season, Carlton to be below us.  I thought it reasonable to make par comparisons with Saints, Tigers, Pies, North and I did think the Bullies.  Certainly, I do not believe we are anywhere near a Hawthorn at this stage and understand we have a long way to go, before we even get close.

I,, for one, am not trying to be negative, just realistic.   I have seen all of this before and am a little tired of it being groundhog day so often.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No Chris, I consider, at the present time, the Lions, Essendon, GCS, Port and I thought like many, at the beginning of the season, Carlton to be below us.  I thought it reasonable to make par comparisons with Saints, Tigers, Pies, North and I did think the Bullies.  Certainly, I do not believe we are anywhere near a Hawthorn at this stage and understand we have a long way to go, before we even get close.

I,, for one, am not trying to be negative, just realistic.   I have seen all of this before and am a little tired of it being groundhog day so often.

I think you may be underestimating a couple of those teams (North, Bullies & Port) and overestimating the Hawks. They haven't been anywhere near the team of the last few years this year and escaped with lucky wins on no less than 3 occasions. The Saints almost (should have) beat the Hawks down in Tassie so how good are they really? The thing is in footy teams don't always win or lose games they should otherwise we wouldn't bother actually playing the games. And like the Saints we are a young team who will vary in consistency throughout the year. Although the plots will look sporadic on the graph week by week, the long term trend I am confident is going up.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Dr. Gonzo

[DeeZee 7,445]

I think we are pretty good at the contested ball and have a good forward line.

We do however constantly get found out with teams with good outside run,and our defence seems to lack as a consequence.

So we are still a young side and a work in progress which needs to get better in tightening up and negating sides,especially when they are in transition.

Maybe not kidding ourselves but perhaps a bit premature in our expectations.

Untill we can string together three of four wins on the trot and beat some really good opposition consistently then we can't be considered a really good side.

[Chris 2,892]

16 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No Chris, I consider, at the present time, the Lions, Essendon, GCS, Port and I thought like many, at the beginning of the season, Carlton to be below us.  I thought it reasonable to make par comparisons with Saints, Tigers, Pies, North and I did think the Bullies.  Certainly, I do not believe we are anywhere near a Hawthorn at this stage and understand we have a long way to go, before we even get close.

I,, for one, am not trying to be negative, just realistic.   I have seen all of this before and am a little tired of it being groundhog day so often.

But you want to compare to clubs with similar lists, unless you are making subjective claims on the talent of each list then you must look at it in terms of age and experience. On that measure we are middle of the pack or just above with only really the dogs and GWS well clear, both of whom are older and more experienced.

We can try and compare our list as similar to the ones you listed if you like but that is purely subjective and gives no indication of the potential future. 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think you may be underestimating a couple of those teams (North, Bullies & Port) and overestimating the Hawks. They haven't been anywhere near the team of the last few years this year and escaped with lucky wins on no less than 3 occasions. The Saints almost (should have) beat the Hawks down in Tassie so how good are they really? The thing is in footy teams don't always win or lose games they should otherwise we wouldn't bother actually playing the games. And like the Saints we are a young team who will vary in consistency throughout the year. Although the plots will look sporadic on the graph week by week, the long term trend I am confident is going up.

I agree with some of what you say Gonzo.  However, I do not overestimate or understimate the Hawks and my evaluation of the other teams was reflective of my thoughts at the beginning of 2016.  After a great start to the 2015 season, Hawthorn lost to Essendon by 2 points in round 2.  Come round 6, GWS beat them by 10 points, flogged us the following week by 105, they lost the next week to the Swans by 4 points.  Heading towards the finals, they lost to Richmond in round 18, lost to Port by 22 points in round 21 and West Coast flogged them in the first week of the finals.  The Hawks are a great side, and know how to win when it matters.  For this reason, when the business end of this season comes, I still reckon they will be well and truly in the finals calculations.  

As I said, I understand, we have a long way to go, before we get to that level.  

Edit: The Hawks also has significant injury concerns in the middle of 2015

Edited June 1, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He said we were sub-AFL standard.  We may be sub-premiership standard  (which is the point of the graph) but we are not sub-AFL standard like we were in 2013.

What's the difference between 2013 & 2016 Defensively?

The improvent in the middle and up forward can be seen easily

But not in the back half...it is a mess

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

47 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I agree with some of what you say Gonzo.  However, I do not overestimate or understimate the Hawks and my evaluation of the other teams was reflective of my thoughts at the beginning of 2016.  After a great start to the 2015 season, Hawthorn lost to Essendon by 2 points in round 2.  Come round 6, GWS beat them by 10 points, flogged us the following week by 105, they lost the next week to the Swans by 4 points.  Heading towards the finals, they lost to Richmond in round 18, lost to Port by 22 points in round 21 and West Coast flogged them in the first week of the finals.  The Hawks are a great side, and know how to win when it matters.  For this reason, when the business end of this season comes, I still reckon they will be well and truly in the finals calculations.  

As I said, I understand, we have a long way to go, before we get to that level.  

Edit: The Hawks also has significant injury concerns in the middle of 2015

Agreed and I would never wrote off the Hawks. I haven't looked at them in enough detail but over the last fortnight I've seen it mentioned that they've barely won "contested possessions" since late last year (round 17 or so). Part of what makes them so good is confidence in their ability to win and their confidence in each other to play to their structures/gameplan. They've had 3 close calls so far this year and we're pretty well beaten by the Cats, Giant and Swans. Of course as you say never write them off but I think they're starting to wane a little. Maybe not out of premiership contention but certainly not the powerhouse they have been.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What's the difference between 2013 & 2016 Defensively?

The improvent in the middle and up forward can be seen easily

But not in the back half...it is a mess

Really? I don't think I need to answer this.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Really? I don't think I need to answer this.

I want the FD to answer it with all due respect Dr

ever since round 2 against North when we wer 0-7 goals down it has been a weekly concern, and we are yet to play top sides yet. 

[beelzebub 23,390]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I want the FD to answer it with all due respect Dr

ever since round 2 against North when we wer 0-7 goals down it has been a weekly concern, and we are yet to play top sides yet. 

I do wonder just how robust the angst towards criticism of the back end will be come a few months time 

[Ethan Tremblay 31,243]

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

 

An example of problems encountered when going backwards and landing flat on ones defensive area. 

What's the girl in the background doing? Putting her top back on? 

[ManDee 7,319]

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What's the girl in the background doing? Putting her top back on? 

That would be a forward press.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I want the FD to answer it with all due respect Dr

ever since round 2 against North when we wer 0-7 goals down it has been a weekly concern, and we are yet to play top sides yet. 

You say the improvement in the middle and forward half can be easily seen but the back half is a mess. The back half looks like a mess when the middle and forward half don't do their job. It's harder to see that on TV but trust me that's what's happening.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You say the improvement in the middle and forward half can be easily seen but the back half is a mess. The back half looks like a mess when the middle and forward half don't do their job. It's harder to see that on TV but trust me that's what's happening.

I agree. But why are they not doing there job after 3 Years of Roos at the helm?

Bolton & Beveridge got the message across in weeks not years...

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I agree. But why are they not doing there job after 3 Years of Roos at the helm?

Bolton & Beveridge got the message across in weeks not years...

We've turned over the majority of our list since Roos  came on board. Beveridge lost Griffen which was a blow but still had a senior core to build around and provide leadership and stability. Carlton still have that with Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kreuzer, Simpson, Curnow. We had Jones. That's it. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We've turned over the majority of our list since Roos  came on board. Beveridge lost Griffen which was a blow but still had a senior core to build around and provide leadership and stability. Carlton still have that with Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Kreuzer, Simpson, Curnow. We had Jones. That's it. 

You hope that is the answer. None of us know for sure

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I want the FD to answer it with all due respect Dr

ever since round 2 against North when we wer 0-7 goals down it has been a weekly concern, and we are yet to play top sides yet. 

Pretty sure they wont SW

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

21 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Pretty sure they wont SW

Well yes. But we live in hope that the shambles will be rectified. 

These guys are getting fat salaries to learn. 

Time to put it into practise every week, like we reguliar folks have to in our jobs. 

Imagine if we were putting in the same performances in the office for 3 years.

enough is enough. 

Potencial<Action

Edited June 1, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Well yes. But we live in hope that the shambles will be rectified. 

These guys are getting fat salaries to learn. 

Time to put it into practise every week, like we reguliar folks have to in our jobs. 

Imagine if we were putting in the same performances in the office for 3 years.

enough is enough. 

Potencial<Action

We don't see often the maniacal play from us like the Hawks and better sides  do when challenged. Or Carlton last round for instance.  Like we are a dysfunctional public service department.  Get the easy jobs done and don't bother if it's too hard.  Just go through the motions. But never mind, just keep turning up because the weekly pay is still there. I just want to see a maniacal performance from us this week. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by america de cali

[Rogue 585]

On 28/05/2016 at 4:48 PM, gOLLy said:

N.Jones needs a spell in the twos.

Not good enough

I liked this post, but then I realised it might not have been sarcastic. Oops.

Last season we had seven wins from 22 games. Right now we're five wins from 10 games, and are playing far better footy. I'm shocked at how negative some people in this thread are.

 

 

[binman 44,533]

11 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Last season we had seven wins from 22 games. Right now we're five wins from 10 games, and are playing far better footy. I'm shocked at how negative some people in this thread are.

 

 

I'm not. It's one reason why i hate coming onto DL after a bad loss.