POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 18

[old dee 23,781]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You don't think everyone gets that, OD?

Just because some choose to look at a variety of aspects in a game doesn't mean we don't get that to win we need to play better overall.  We're still allowed to assess the positives from a game as well.

Yes you are wiseblood I just get annoyed that a lot of people seem happy that we only lost by a small margin again.

Are we better than 2015 yes quite a lot but compared to the top two thirds of the competition we still have a long way to go.

That is the last I will say about it until the next time we lose narrowly.

 

[Satyriconhome 10,729]

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Not everyone on here is that simplistic Saty, some can think and discern.

C,mon RL ...you're having me on...right...I want a definition of some as it applies to Demonland...pack mentality I may believe

[old dee 23,781]

40 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I can see I am facing a losing battle.

You obviously don't want to defend or explain why you said we didn't "DESERVE" to win. Stop saying we lost. We all know that.

Just explain why you say we didn't we deserve to win, given that the whole footy world,  including the WCE coach, said we should have won and "DESERVED" to win.

Mr Leg I thought I had said it a couple of time so here goes again.

We did not deserve to win because we did not kick the highest score.

The highest score wins. 

[mrtwister 652]

52 minutes ago, 45HG said:

What do people make of our last quarters?

Hawthorn, Adelaide, Port, St Kilda, West Coach - each time we've been in touching distance and either not converted or the other team has kicked away.

Don't forget NM. (Back when they were the best AFL team in the world).

[beelzebub 23,313]

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You guys would make good politicians, you continually avoid the question. Go and read my question. 

Because the question is illogical. It supposes deserts are based upon the eradication of supposed negatives. You propose a sliding doors style of alternative outcome as a basis upon which a team OUGHT to have won. That literally is a nonsense.

[Sir Why You Little 36,985]

40 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Far too simplistic with no analysis.

For example the umpires give 10 incorrect frees, resulting in 10 goals and the other side loses by one point. 

Another example, four players are injured in the first quarter playing no further part in the game and the other side wins by a point.

Why do both of those teams that lost, not "DESERVE" to win?

Who cares?

The Winner gets 4 points & The Loser gets nothing. 

I am sick of this club losing and NOT learning from it

The Sick & Poor deserve

The MFC has still got a long way to go to toughen up. 

We lost because of over using hand ball (again) and missing crucial goals

 

[Redleg 40,843]

6 minutes ago, old dee said:

Mr Leg I thought I had said it a couple of time so here goes again.

We did not deserve to win because we did not kick the highest score.

The highest score wins. 

I now understand. "Deserving" to win, means winning, no matter how you get there, as long as you win.

You therefore would have no problem, with the Bombers winning the flag, doped to the eyeballs, or a team knocking out half the other team behind play, as long as they kick the highest score and win.

Based on your specific and limited explanation, you would have to agree.

[wretched.sylph 164]

20 hours ago, The Sailing Demon said:

Really would have loved to get an upset win this year, St Kilda, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood ALL have upset wins, unfortunatley we have none.

Major bummer.

 

All our wins are upset wins.

 

[sue 9,096]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Mr Leg I thought I had said it a couple of time so here goes again.

We did not deserve to win because we did not kick the highest score.

The highest score wins. 

Your position is that no matter what you only deserve to win if you kick the highest score and actually win, no ifs buts or exceptions.  But logically there are - surely if we were 20 goals ahead by half time and then 10 players got injured by the grandstand collapsing on them at half time and then the opposition had  only 12 opponents and kicked 21 goals, I trust you wouldn't say we didn't deserve to win.  And in-between that ridiculous scenario and yesterday's match there has to be a point where it flips over to 'didn't deserve to win'.   So we can reasonably argue about where that point is.  And more importantly the extent of improvement. But I find it downright silly to just say unless we win it means nothing.

[Moonshadow 17,675]

51 minutes ago, 50 Years A Demon said:

Time to get rid of one of the remnants of the nightmare Neeld era - DAWES fair dinkum this bloke is not worth $500 a year let alone $500k a year. How in the hell could he miss everything in the last quarter and kick out on the full, he is useless and needs to go, a waste of a first round draft pick being given away for him and $2million spent on him in the last two years. Enjoy your time trying to pick up money playing at local footy next year, your are past AFL footy, you were 4 years ago when Neeld made one of his many poor judgements.

Yes, Dawes and Mitch Clark didn't end up being the power forward combination we hoped they'd be. 

[Satyriconhome 10,729]

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Because the question is illogical. It supposes deserts are based upon the eradication of supposed negatives. You propose a sliding doors style of alternative outcome as a basis upon which a team OUGHT to have won. That literally is a nonsense.

My 'deserts" are usually based on a nice sponge, the recipe for which has been passed down through the generations.........but then again I have never been good at language or grammer

[TRIGON 4,783]

11 minutes ago, wretched.sylph said:

 

All our wins are upset wins.

 

Certainly  generated a lot of upset losses. Overall  though we've improved a lot. Require additional pace and  to acquire a player similar to a Burgoyne type and we'd be in good shape.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TRIGON

[Satyriconhome 10,729]

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I now understand. "Deserving" to win, means winning, no matter how you get there, as long as you win.

You therefore would have no problem, with the Bombers winning the flag, doped to the eyeballs, or a team knocking out half the other team behind play, as long as they kick the highest score and win.

Based on your specific and limited explanation, you would have to agree.

You got in in 1.365 recurring RL

[old dee 23,781]

12 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I now understand. "Deserving" to win, means winning, no matter how you get there, as long as you win.

You therefore would have no problem, with the Bombers winning the flag, doped to the eyeballs, or a team knocking out half the other team behind play, as long as they kick the highest score and win.

Based on your specific and limited explanation, you would have to agree.

I think the bombers did the second to us a few years back in a GF Mr. Leg.

I think you are taking the conditions to the same silly length that you think I am taking it.

Of course I expect things to be legal. Unless I am seriously mistaken I believe we lost the game yesterday because we did not kick the higgest score. No one belted us up or were on drugs ( well I guess who knows with WCE as they have form).

Am I mistaken?

 

[Macca 16,922]

I could understand the outrage if we'd lost heavily and didn't give a yelp. 

Hate losing like anyone else but despite losing yesterday, it was one of our better performance for the year.  There's often a very fine line between winning & losing and yesterday's game was a case in point.

I actually took a lot of heart from the game and our efforts proved to me that we're on the right path.  We lack big game experience, finishing skills and poise but ... that evaluation could have been said at the start of the season with a view that it's going to take more than 1 season to overcome those shortcomings.

We're probably going to have the same sort of issues towards the end of next season but those issues probably won't be as pronounced.  We're not Hawthorn or Sydney (yet)

The current list needs time but the FD still needs to add some more good footballers to the list.  And there is no reason why the upcoming off-season won't be fruitful.  The sky is not falling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,219]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Far too simplistic with no analysis.

For example the umpires give 10 incorrect frees, resulting in 10 goals and the other side loses by one point. 

Another example, four players are injured in the first quarter playing no further part in the game and the other side wins by a point.

Why do both of those teams that lost, not "DESERVE" to win?

In any sport, there is "the rub of the green". I reckon you could go through almost  any game or competitive situation and find factors that may have influenced the result. Poor umpiring, losing the toss, injury, weather etc.

The only certainty is the final score - win, lose or draw. Looking at would haves or may haves is pointless. The team that won on the scoreboard earned it and deserved it.

[old dee 23,781]

4 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

In any sport, there is "the rub of the green". I reckon you could go through almost  any game or competitive situation and find factors that may have influenced the result. Poor umpiring, losing the toss, injury, weather etc.

The only certainty is the final score - win, lose or draw. Looking at would haves or may haves is pointless. The team that won on the scoreboard earned it and deserved it.

Yep got it Bbo.

[Demonsone 2,036]

27 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Who cares?

The Winner gets 4 points & The Loser gets nothing. 

I am sick of this club losing and NOT learning from it

The Sick & Poor deserve

The MFC has still got a long way to go to toughen up. 

We lost because of over using hand ball (again) and missing crucial goals

 

Umpires influenced the result also.. Mfc players missed goals but we're not influenced by the umpires, WC got goals from disgraceful umpiring!

[Sir Why You Little 36,985]

5 minutes ago, Hogan2014 said:

Umpires influenced the result also.. Mfc players missed goals but we're not influenced by the umpires, WC got goals from disgraceful umpiring!

Sure Hoges. But Umpires are Crap every week

ask any supporter. We dominated the stats and lost

This Club still does not know how to win. 

I am filthy on it and i hope the players and coaches are to. 

If they are not we will NEVER get to where i want The MFC to be regularly 

[PaulRB 6,350]

17 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

In any sport, there is "the rub of the green". I reckon you could go through almost  any game or competitive situation and find factors that may have influenced the result. Poor umpiring, losing the toss, injury, weather etc.

The only certainty is the final score - win, lose or draw. Looking at would haves or may haves is pointless. The team that won on the scoreboard earned it and deserved it.

I think you're confusing your objectives with your subjectives.

[Satyriconhome 10,729]

Just now, PaulRB said:

I think you're confusing your objectives with your subjectives.

Objectives are people who demonstrate till they get what they want, like the UFU, and subjectives are us, having to put up with policies that the objectives forced upon us via the politicians

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Lock the thread then guys.  We're not allowed to analyse the game or look at anything even remotely positively from the weekend.  

In fact, someone email Roos and tell him the same thing.  Tell him not to go over the tape, educate his players, praise them on the things they did well and show them what they need to work on to try and eliminate the mistakes from this time.  It's pointless apparently, just like the discussion on a football forum.

Carry on.

[PaulRB 6,350]

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Objectives are people who demonstrate till they get what they want, like the UFU, and subjectives are us, having to put up with policies that the objectives forced upon us via the politicians

I'm don't understand what you're saying. 

UFU? 

[old dee 23,781]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

Lock the thread then guys.  We're not allowed to analyse the game or look at anything even remotely positively from the weekend.  

In fact, someone email Roos and tell him the same thing.  Tell him not to go over the tape, educate his players, praise them on the things they did well and show them what they need to work on to try and eliminate the mistakes from this time.  It's pointless apparently, just like the discussion on a football forum.

Carry on.

Now you are soundy as silly as me Wiseblood. It is just a matter of opinion hang in there I appreciate your view.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Lock the thread then guys.  We're not allowed to analyse the game or look at anything even remotely positively from the weekend.  

In fact, someone email Roos and tell him the same thing.  Tell him not to go over the tape, educate his players, praise them on the things they did well and show them what they need to work on to try and eliminate the mistakes from this time.  It's pointless apparently, just like the discussion on a football forum.

Carry on.

Indeed, we dare not discuss the football objectively.

Let's rant and rave instead.