analysing Carlton supporters

[pivotal]

Although Essendon have won as many flags as Carlton, and a number of other clubs have also won their fair share in recent years, it seems that no other bunch of supporters go on about their club's premiership success quite like Carlton fans.

Why is this?

I suspect its because they have been listening to John Elliott rave on and on for too long and they are beginning to talk just like he does without realising it!

Carlton supporters talk as though they are the reigning premiers all the time. Someone needs to remind them that half a decade has passed since they last won a flag. Michael Bolton (the singer) was popular back then just to give you an idea of the time that has passed!

Having said all this, I realise it has been three and a half decades since my side won a flag, but that is irrelevant, Geelong supporters are not cocky.

 

[sprigglet]

when everyday you sit on a bus on the way to school with 10 (no joke) carlton supporters vs ONE geelong supporter you dont need to analyze them anymore, they just dont make sense any ideas of how to exterminate carlton supporters??? (could come in handy when listening to "well remember the 1995 grand final" over and over again

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by pivotal
. Michael Bolton (the singer) was popular back then just to give you an idea of the time that has passed!

& Milli Vanilli were thought to be real singers

 

[GFCFAN]

Originally posted by pivotal
Michael Bolton (the singer) was popular back then just to give you an idea of the time that has passed.

and Russell Morris was "The Real Thing" back when we won ours.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I love it. Geelong fans must have already conceded the 2002 season and turned their attention to other teams.

I think that all of the top teams have an arrogance and an expectation to win about them. Ask the Bomber fans and Pies fans and even the Hawks fans to some extent. The Port fans are also very adept at showing confidence.

By the way, we are the reigning premiers all the time in my mind because none of the seasons count until we win it!

 

[Dan26]

One of my pet hates is how Carlton supporters claim premierships equate to success, but when another club is equal on premierships but has one more runners-up, (therefore putting that club ahead) they don't ackowledge that club as being the most successful.

In short they are hypocrites.

If premierships are the measure of success, then two sides who are even, will be seprated by runners-up. If both sides have the same runners-up, they will be seprated by who has come third the most times etc etc.

Essendon has been runners-up 14 times, compared to Carlton's 13, so therefore Carlton supporters have to judge Essendon as the leaders. After all, the Carlton hypocrites adopt the system whereby the most premierships is the most successful. That system of evaluating success, is simple to understand: If premierships are equal, runners-up is used to separate the teams. If runners-up are equal, third-placing are used etc etc.

If you are showing a ladder of premiership winners, the team with the most premierships will be on top of that ladder. If two teams are equal, the team who has come second the most times will get that top rung.

So, if Carlton lose the GF this year, or win the premiership, they will go top. Until then, they will remain second on the offical AFL-success ladder, according to the AFL.

Get used to it Carlton - You are number 2.

I can hear you arguing....STOP! Don't argue. I said stop! Shut up, I said. You can't argue it. Just quietly accept your fate.

 

[dees*gal]

ok, some carlton supporters are really rude at matches and like to gloat alot, but i know a few carlton supporters, and they're not all that bad!! the ones that i know... well one of thems a really good friend of mine, and she only gloats to piss me off, but really she isn't too bad. another one on the other hand... **** he's an anoying little prick!! now he's bad with the whole carlton thing!!
any ways, i did have a point to this... oh yeah... i thionk it depends more on the person, not just the fact that they're a carlton supporter, and not all of them are that bad. give em a chance!!

GO DEES!!!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by dees*gal
and not all of them are that bad. give em a chance!!

Yes they ARE that bad, and no, I'm not giving them a chance.

At least Collingwood fans are so delusionally one-eyed in the support for their club that they ignore the opposition fans. Carlton are arrogant, cocky, infuriating, gloatful and love to rub it into the opposition fans. They are vomit. Pure vomit.

 

[Bee]

Originally posted by Dan26
One of my pet hates is how Carlton supporters claim premierships equate to success, but when another club is equal on premierships but has one more runners-up, (therefore putting that club ahead) they don't ackowledge that club as being the most successful.

In short they are hypocrites.

If premierships are the measure of success, then two sides who are even, will be seprated by runners-up. If both sides have the same runners-up, they will be seprated by who has come third the most times etc etc.

Essendon has been runners-up 14 times, compared to Carlton's 13, so therefore Carlton supporters have to judge Essendon as the leaders. After all, the Carlton hypocrites adopt the system whereby the most premierships is the most successful. That system of evaluating success, is simple to understand: If premierships are equal, runners-up is used to separate the teams. If runners-up are equal, third-placing are used etc etc.

If you are showing a ladder of premiership winners, the team with the most premierships will be on top of that ladder. If two teams are equal, the team who has come second the most times will get that top rung.

So, if Carlton lose the GF this year, or win the premiership, they will go top. Until then, they will remain second on the offical AFL-success ladder, according to the AFL.

Get used to it Carlton - You are number 2.

I can hear you arguing....STOP! Don't argue. I said stop! Shut up, I said. You can't argue it. Just quietly accept your fate.

Same $hit different day, Dan! How about this?
Carlton have won 16 grand finals and Essendon have won only 14. Not even you can argue that one.

Afterall two of Essendons "premierships" were awarded without playing a grandfinal, were they not? 1897 and 1924. And one of those (1924 I think) has always been disputed that Richmond should have won.

So lets get really technical and say Carlton head you by two grandfinal wins.
Now be a good boy and take your place behind Carlton where you belong!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bee
Same $hit different day, Dan! How about this?
Carlton have won 16 grand finals and Essendon have won only 14. Not even you can argue that one.

I can. From the AFL publication "Finals '99"

Between 1901 and 1930 the only matches defined as "Grand Finals" were those where the minor premier used their right of challenge after being knocked out in either the Semi final or Final, excepting 1903 and 1906 where this right of challenge did not apply. During this period if the minor premier won it's two matches, the final game was designated the "Final", as if they had lost they would still have had right of challenge in a "Grand Final".

In 1906 and 1908 Carlton won the premiership by finishing minor premiers and winning it's finals matches and as such no Grand Final was required.

Carlton have won only 14 Grand Finals.

Afterall two of Essendons "premierships" were awarded without playing a grandfinal, were they not? 1897 and 1924.

As were two of Carltons, 1906 and 1908.

And one of those (1924 I think) has always been disputed that Richmond should have won.

It's never been disputed by those who know how the finals system in that year worked. Both teams lost one game, Essendon had a better percentage. Simple, even for you Bee.

So lets get really technical and say Carlton head you by two grandfinal wins.

Lets not as they don't.

Now be a good boy and take your place behind Carlton where you belong!

No, we'll take our place ahead of you, where we belong.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Dan26

In short they are hypocrites.

Er, no Dan - you are the hypocrite. You have said numerous times that Carlton are the most successful club, but now here you are using your ridiculous "Essendon have finished 2nd once (that's right, only once) more than Carlton".

What about the fact that Carlton has finished 3rd 16 times to Essendon's 8? What about Carlton's average ladder positin of 4.2 compared to Essendon's 4.9? What about 4 wooden spoons to 0? What about games won, games lost and winning ratio? You've admitted Carlton's superior games winning ratio makes them the most successful, yet for convenience sake you now argue against this?

And Dan, that "pet hate" thing you are talking about is complete rubbish. You say that one of your pet hates is Carlton supporters not admitting that one more runner up finish makes Essendon more successful. How can this be one of your pet hates since it has only been the case since the end of September?

How did Dan manage to turn this thread into another Carlton v Essendon argument?

And Dave, are you sure about Carlton not playing in the GF in 1906, or 1908? I'm pretty sure they did. If it wasn't called a Grand Final then it was certainly called a final.

 

[TigerTank]

You always know it's getting near the start of the season when Sensible Dan is kidnapped and replaced by his evil twin Idiot Dan.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Blues2001
And Dave, are you sure about Carlton not playing in the GF in 1906, or 1908? I'm pretty sure they did.

Yes, there was no Grand Final played in those years as Carlton did not need to exercise it's right of challenge. They finished top of the ladder and won their finals matches.

If it wasn't called a Grand Final then it was certainly called a final.

Yes it was, as were the matches that Essendon played in to win the 2 premierships that Bee referred to.

Prior to 1931 there were quite a few different finals series formats. Other than 1897 and 1924 (both round robin) the finals were knockout with the minor premier having the right of challenge other than in 1906 (there were criterea the top team had to meet to qualify for right of challenge and this didn't occur in 1906). A Grand Final was only played if the minor permiers lost one of their finals matches and this was played between the minor premier and the winner of the finals series. Otherwise the final game of the season was known as the "Final".

So it's still 14-14

I don't have my copy of "Finals 99' handy but if you want to borrow one (the AFL sent me two for some reason) let me know.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Dave


Yes it was, as were the matches that Essendon played in to win the 2 premierships that Bee referred to.

No, I'm certain that (I think 1897?) Essendon didn't even play one of these matches. They just finished on top and that was enough I think.

 

[TigerTank]

Arguing who is better - Essendon or Carlton, is a bit like arguing the merits of Adolf Hitler and Iosef Stalin.

The fact someone finds Essendon and Hitler less loathsome than Carlton and Stalin (or vice versa), isn't saying much.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Dave

I don't have my copy of "Finals 99' handy but if you want to borrow one (the AFL sent me two for some reason) let me know.

Actually, I already have that (why didn't they send us AFL 2000 and 2001? ) at home, but thanks anyway.

 

[Carl]

Are you people trying to say that if you had won the most premierships you would never mention it?Who are you kidding?

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dan26


Yes they ARE that bad, and no, I'm not giving them a chance.

At least Collingwood fans are so delusionally one-eyed in the support for their club that they ignore the opposition fans. Carlton are arrogant, cocky, infuriating, gloatful and love to rub it into the opposition fans. They are vomit. Pure vomit.

You are full of **** you silly little man.

stop generalising


1st and nowhere Dan

Second means NOTHING

That is the beauty of the AUSTRALIAN game

Minor Premiership means NOTHING, second means NOTHING

In fact in hindsight if you don't win it, 16th is a better spot as you get better draft choices and more chance of doing the ONLY thing that matters

ie winning a Premiership.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Blues2001
No, I'm certain that (I think 1897?) Essendon didn't even play one of these matches. They just finished on top and that was enough I think.

In 1897 there was a round robin finals system involving the top four sides. The premiership came down to the final match between Essendon and Melbourne with the Dons getting up by a goal, 1.8-14 to 0.8-8, still the lowest scoring finals match in league history.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by TigerTank
Arguing who is better - Essendon or Carlton, is a bit like arguing the merits of Adolf Hitler and Iosef Stalin.

Oi! who's to say it's not Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi?

'sides I'm just in this for the **** strirring value!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Blues2001
Actually, I already have that (why didn't they send us AFL 2000 and 2001? ) at home, but thanks anyway.

No worries.

 

[Fat Red]

Dave, from my understanding that is not correct. Your description of the finals system is correct, but the title 'Grand Final' was recognised as applying to the premiership-winning matches, once it was clear that was what they were. Admittedly it was not known until after the game, but at the time they were recognised as being 'Grand Finals' although not in the way that we know them today.

BTW, were Essendon's 1901, 1911-12 and 1923 premierships all won in knockout GFs?

Anyway, it's a silly argument; premierships are premierships.

If we are agreed (and I know not everyone will be, but most are) that by virtue of having 16 premierships each Carlton and Essendon are tied at number 1, then the following tiebreaker methods are possible:

Most times runner-up: Essendon
Premierships per season: Essendon

Head-to-head wins: Carlton
Overall wins: Carlton
Finals appearances: Carlton
Wooden spoons: Carlton

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by TigerTank
Arguing who is better - Essendon or Carlton, is a bit like arguing the merits of Adolf Hitler and Iosef Stalin.

The fact someone finds Essendon and Hitler less loathsome than Carlton and Stalin (or vice versa), isn't saying much.

TT, we're competing to be more loathsome, not less

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dan26


Yes they ARE that bad, and no, I'm not giving them a chance.

At least Collingwood fans are so delusionally one-eyed in the support for their club that they ignore the opposition fans. Carlton are arrogant, cocky, infuriating, gloatful and love to rub it into the opposition fans. They are vomit. Pure vomit.

Do I really need to bother doing a search for the number of times you've said the Carlton fans at BF are high quality people?

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Fat Red


TT, we're competing to be more loathsome, not less

Fair point.

Hitler or Stalin ...

... or to borrow from one brilliant scribe from Bigfooty (can't remember his name )

Sauron or Saruman.