| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SwansWay
Joined: 13 May 2015
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| E wrote: | | SwansWay wrote: | To be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about this already!!
I joined Nick's only in the last few years when the Pies weren't performing very well or simply weren't good enough. I figured seeing as this is supposed to be board full of Collingwood supporters that once we turned things around and started playing well again, that the vitriol and hysteria would settle down. BUT ...finally we're exactly the team that we've all been waiting and hoping for and STILL our own supporters are nitpicking, finding myriad ways to tear us down and pick apart their own team!! I know that life can be boring when you're content -- even if you don't realise you're happy -- but seriously ENOUGH already! You run the risk of sounding like malcontents or at worst case, borderline neurotic.
Let's run through the gamut of a side sitting just outisde the top 4 shall we?: "we haven't beaten anyone in the top 8" (which is an ever changing proposition) or "we're cooked" or "we're picking the wrong players" or "let's make 12 changes to a pathetic injury plagued side that lost to the reigning premiers by 4 goals".
It's almost got a gloating tone to it. Like some people are getting aroused at the idea of us failing. Maybe ask yourselves whether you actually support this club or not? |
dude, i am the author of this thread. This is not a put Collingwood down thread. Its a funny fact is all it is. Relax. |
E, my message is an open letter of sorts and this isn't the first time this subject has been raised. You started this thread little over a week ago but it's been a topic going all the way back to before the bye. I think I've raised plenty of valid grievances as backed up by reams of evidence on a weekly basis. |
|
|
|
 |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| SwansWay wrote: | | E wrote: | | SwansWay wrote: | To be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about this already!!
I joined Nick's only in the last few years when the Pies weren't performing very well or simply weren't good enough. I figured seeing as this is supposed to be board full of Collingwood supporters that once we turned things around and started playing well again, that the vitriol and hysteria would settle down. BUT ...finally we're exactly the team that we've all been waiting and hoping for and STILL our own supporters are nitpicking, finding myriad ways to tear us down and pick apart their own team!! I know that life can be boring when you're content -- even if you don't realise you're happy -- but seriously ENOUGH already! You run the risk of sounding like malcontents or at worst case, borderline neurotic.
Let's run through the gamut of a side sitting just outisde the top 4 shall we?: "we haven't beaten anyone in the top 8" (which is an ever changing proposition) or "we're cooked" or "we're picking the wrong players" or "let's make 12 changes to a pathetic injury plagued side that lost to the reigning premiers by 4 goals".
It's almost got a gloating tone to it. Like some people are getting aroused at the idea of us failing. Maybe ask yourselves whether you actually support this club or not? |
dude, i am the author of this thread. This is not a put Collingwood down thread. Its a funny fact is all it is. Relax. |
E, my message is an open letter of sorts and this isn't the first time this subject has been raised. You started this thread little over a week ago but it's been a topic going all the way back to before the bye. I think I've raised plenty of valid grievances as backed up by reams of evidence on a weekly basis. |
ok, but just so that you know, we crap on about stuff here as a way to get through the week. I think if you are concerned about whether we love Collingwood (and the 2018 version of Collingwood), you are misunderstanding a lot of what is being said here.
The perfect example is the P4S vs Qld Magpies argument. Has absolutely nothing to do with Langdon and Sidey and Beams at this point. They just enjoy taking opposite sides of the same coin.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: is where I'm at
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: | | ^Now this thread has become fun! All the ways we can beat teams, possibly finish top 4 and yet still manage to have beaten no-one of substance |
We beat Essendon twice. Is that not beating a team of substances?
_________________
Fault finding is like window washing. All the dirt seems to be on the other side.
________________________________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | Albert Parker wrote: | | ^Now this thread has become fun! All the ways we can beat teams, possibly finish top 4 and yet still manage to have beaten no-one of substance |
We beat Essendon twice. Is that not beating a team of substances? |
They are top 8 on ASADAs watch list.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | Albert Parker wrote: | | ^Now this thread has become fun! All the ways we can beat teams, possibly finish top 4 and yet still manage to have beaten no-one of substance |
We beat Essendon twice. Is that not beating a team of substances? |
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
John LEWIN
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The value of any statistic is only what you can make of it. To say it is a fact adds nothing. How it is interpreted is what determines the meaning it has. I think it tells us we have had a lot of injuries. Whether without them we would have beaten teams currently or previously ahead of us on the ladder must be speculation. I would say there is good reason to believe we would have but I can't provide a statistic off hand to support that assertion. So, beyond simplistically reliving the past, where does the discussion take us? I think the posters who question injury management have raised a valid issue.
_________________
JL |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John LEWIN wrote: | | The value of any statistic is only what you can make of it. To say it is a fact adds nothing. How it is interpreted is what determines the meaning it has. I think it tells us we have had a lot of injuries. Whether without them we would have beaten teams currently or previously ahead of us on the ladder must be speculation. I would say there is good reason to believe we would have but I can't provide a statistic off hand to support that assertion. So, beyond simplistically reliving the past, where does the discussion take us? I think the posters who question injury management have raised a valid issue. |
it may suggest that a flag is a long shot, since we would have likely have to beat a top 8 team 4 weeks in a row (and history suggests we cant beat any of them even once). The injuries are what they are (and aren't changing and the in-game injuries are likely to continue and in any event cannot fully explain a 1-7 record of futility (which is what it will be if We beat Port and either Port or Melbourne miss out) or an 0-8 record of futility if we lose to Port and Melbourne miss out on the 8.
I guess it also allows a fantasy world debate about how good might we have been if we had a full list. I'd rather live here in the real world and make the case that you are likely only as good as your record says you are. What ifs are for the teams that don't win the flag.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
John LEWIN
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
E we are really not that far apart, you say the stat speaks for itself and it does. But what does it mean? Are you suggesting that with a much healthier list, say like Richmond we would still be incapable of beating any of the teams which you identify? If so the meaning as opposed to the fact of the stat is profound. That would suggest that we need radical list management decisions or we will remain on the fringe of the 8 at best.
_________________
JL |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John LEWIN wrote: | | E we are really not that far apart, you say the stat speaks for itself and it does. But what does it mean? Are you suggesting that with a much healthier list, say like Richmond we would still be incapable of beating any of the teams which you identify? If so the meaning as opposed to the fact of the stat is profound. That would suggest that we need radical list management decisions or we will remain on the fringe of the 8 at best. |
Why worry about thinking what could be done if there was a full healthy list? We haven't got that, haven't had that for years and will be lucky to have it again. That's just the way that it is. The question is what can we do now with the players that we have now. That is all that matters. |
|
|
|
|
SwansWay
Joined: 13 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Here's precisely why I think the premise is specious in the way it was put forward ...you will only count our opponent as a top 8 side after round 23. E said if we beat Port and then they miss out on the 8, then our record against top 8 sides with be 1-7 or something to that effect. Firstly it doesn't account for the fact that by us beating Port, we perhaps caused them to not be a top 8 side. Secondly, are team positions at the time we beat them completely insignificant? Adelaide were a top 8 team when we walloped them and had just come off a 10 goal smashing of Richmond the week before. Pundits gave us no chance to win. Same against Melbourne. How about North Melbourne? Were they not equal top 8 on games when we played them? I just think it's a silly argument to say, let's see if we beat any top 8 sides based on who ends up getting into the finals. As far as I'm concerned, beating a top 8 side counts at the time that we played them. Then we get into an even bigger philosophical discussion of we're the teams we beat Top 8 caliber when we played them. My answer is yes. |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| SwansWay wrote: | | Here's precisely why I think the premise is specious in the way it was put forward ...you will only count our opponent as a top 8 side after round 23. E said if we beat Port and then they miss out on the 8, then our record against top 8 sides with be 1-7 or something to that effect. Firstly it doesn't account for the fact that by us beating Port, we perhaps caused them to not be a top 8 side. Secondly, are team positions at the time we beat them completely insignificant? Adelaide were a top 8 team when we walloped them and had just come off a 10 goal smashing of Richmond the week before. Pundits gave us no chance to win. Same against Melbourne. How about North Melbourne? Were they not equal top 8 on games when we played them? I just think it's a silly argument to say, let's see if we beat any top 8 sides based on who ends up getting into the finals. As far as I'm concerned, beating a top 8 side counts at the time that we played them. Then we get into an even bigger philosophical discussion of we're the teams we beat Top 8 caliber when we played them. My answer is yes. |
Too right! Adelaide and Melbourne were both 3rd when we beat - sorry, smashed - them whilst they were hot and we were rank outsiders. Essendon are going to miss finals because we helped - enormously - to put them where they are. Same will apply if Melbourne, North, or Port miss out.
_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| SwansWay wrote: | | Here's precisely why I think the premise is specious in the way it was put forward ...you will only count our opponent as a top 8 side after round 23. E said if we beat Port and then they miss out on the 8, then our record against top 8 sides with be 1-7 or something to that effect. Firstly it doesn't account for the fact that by us beating Port, we perhaps caused them to not be a top 8 side. Secondly, are team positions at the time we beat them completely insignificant? Adelaide were a top 8 team when we walloped them and had just come off a 10 goal smashing of Richmond the week before. Pundits gave us no chance to win. Same against Melbourne. How about North Melbourne? Were they not equal top 8 on games when we played them? I just think it's a silly argument to say, let's see if we beat any top 8 sides based on who ends up getting into the finals. As far as I'm concerned, beating a top 8 side counts at the time that we played them. Then we get into an even bigger philosophical discussion of we're the teams we beat Top 8 caliber when we played them. My answer is yes. |
nope. The fixture makes assessment of top 8 calibre during the season speculative at best. You have to wait til the end of the season to really know how you fared against the rest, hence why next years fixture is based on the end of the previous season and not half way through.
In reality, Melbourne are classic flat track bullies...beat up on bottom teams have get pummelled by top ones.
Although we struggle to beat the top teams, we are rarely thrashed. However we haven't been able to beat the teams that currently occupy the top except for the Dees, but I devalue that win given their record. |
|
|
|
|
SwansWay
Joined: 13 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So did we lose to the Top 8 Sydney or the Bottom 8 Sydney? How about Geelong? Or GWS?
I understand what you're saying but form indicates Top 8 and any number of things can happen between rounds 1 - 23 to turn a contender into a pretender whether it be injuries or fatigue.
You've undermined your own argument by pointing to next year's fixture because if Melbourne are flat track bullies but still finish 6th, won't they get a harder draw next year regardless of whether they beat quality opposition or not? So there's no clear gauge until round 23? So if we beat Richmond in round 6, you wouldn't know at that point whether we beat a quality side? |
|
|
|
|
Rene Pogel
Joined: 29 Jan 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Halve our injuries and we are top 4
_________________
RIP- Didaka |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The clear reason for questioning the OP in my mind is simple - we are capable of beating all the 9 teams. Most here would agree with this despite the stats to the contrary.
E - I would also hope would acknowledge same and that our past performance is NOT a true reflection of our capacity to beat these teams now, or with best 22.
Our game plan is sound and super competitive- it’s that simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
